NO. a.] DESCRlFriON OF THE FOSSILS. 95 



Schloth. var. is almost certainly identical with the form in question. Un- 

 fortunately, Newton states nothing with regard to the lobe-line of his specimen, 

 so that his data do not permit of a determination of the form There is no 

 doubt whatever, that the piece figured by Newton belongs as little to Macro- 

 cephaliies (or is as little allied to Macrocephalites macrocephalus Schloth. 

 sp.) as do the specimens figured by him, 1. c. PI. XXXIX. figs. 1 & 2. The 

 width of the umbilicus, the involution and sculpture, speak against Macro- 

 cephalites and for Cadoceras. 



The form before me in grey clay sandstone, weathered a brown 

 red, was found at Gape Flora, at a height of 500 550 feet, north of 

 Elmwood, Newton's specimen is also stated to be from Elmwood. 



Among the impressions and smaller fragments of Cadocerates, other forms 

 than those recorded here may possibly be represented. Their condition, how- 

 ever, is too imperfect for certain identification. 



In a smaller fragment from light phosphoritic clay, found near the mar- 

 gin of the glacier, northwest of Elmwood, on July 12th, 1896, I was struck 

 by the small elevation of the principal saddles, which call to mind Cadoceras 

 Elatmce Nik. I am not, however, able to determine whether Cadoceras 

 Elatmce is really represented in the collection before me. 



Two casts of umbilici (with Serpula flaccida Goldf. in light, phosphoritic 

 clay, July 12th, 1896) belong to a species of Cadoceras which, with an um- 

 bilicus still 18 mm. in width, shows closely disposed ribs on the um- 

 bilical wall, extending to the umbilical seam. The width of the umbilicus is 

 equal to an angle of from 45 to 50. It cannot be determined with certainty 

 lo which species these pieces belong; it is possible they belong to Cadoceras 

 Nanseni n. sp., perhaps also to a species allied to Cadoceras Elatmce Nik. 



