Conchifera. 128 Inoceramus. 



Barabini, Morton, pars. Syn. 62, 13, 11 (exclm. 17, 3). Mis- 

 souri, N. J. ?* 0. 



Barabini, M. pars (problematicus ?), 62, 63, pi. 17, f. 3. 



Balchii, M. & H. Proc. Acad. 1860, p. 180. Neb. C. 



Brongniartii, Mant. (Lamarckii), Geol. Suss. 214, 27, 8. 



cancellatus, Goldf. P. Germ. 113, 110, 4. G. C. 



Canadensis, Meek, Assin. Exped. 183, 1, 40. Canada. (7. 



capulus, Shum. Trans. Acad. St. Louis, 1860, p. 606. Texas. C. 



cardissioides, Goldf. P. G. 112, 110, 2. G. U. G. 



concentricus, Park. G. T. 1st ser. vol. v, 58, 1, 4. E., Fr. G. 



confertim-annulatus, Roem. Kreid. Tex. 59, 7, 4. Texas. C. 



Conradi, H. & M. Mem. Acad. Boston, 2d s. vol. v, 387, 2, 5. 



Neb. C. 



convexus, H. & M. id. 386, 2, 2. Neb. C. 



Coquandianus, d'Orb. P. F. 505, 403, 6-8. Fr. G. 



cordiformisj Sow. (striatus), M. Con. 440. 



cordiformis, Goldf. not Sow. (latus), Petr. 113, 110, 6. 



costellatus, Con. Jour. Acad. 2d s. vol. iii, 329, 34, 12. Miss. C. 



Crispii, Mant. Geol. Suss. 133, 27, 11. E., Fr., Texas. C. 



Crispii, Goldf. not Mant. (regularis), 116, 112, 4, a, b, c, 

 (exdus. c?.) 



Crispii, Goldf. not Mant. (Goldfussianus), Petr. 116, 112, 4 d. 



cuneatus, M. & H. Proc. Acad. 1860, p. 181. Neb. C. 



cuneiformis, d'Orb. P. F. 512, 407. Fr. C. 



Cuvieri, Mant. (Lamarckii), Geol. Suss. pi. 27, f. 4. 



Decheni, Roem. Nord. Kreid. 60, 8, 10. G. U. G. 



expansus, Baily, Q. J. G. S. vol. xi, 462, 13, 5. S. Africa. U. G. 



fragilis, H. & M. Mem. Acad. Boston, 2d s. vol. v, 386, 2, 6. 



Neb. C. 



fgibbus, Tuomey, 1855, Proc. Acad. p. 170. Miss. C. 



Goldfussianus, d'Orb. P. F. 517, 4-11. Fr., G. C. 



gryphaeoides, Sow. (concentricus), M. Con. 584. 



* I have never (except in the "Ripley group," which has a mineral character 

 very much like the Speeton clay of England) seen but one or two fragments 

 of Inocerami from New Jersey, where there are whole beds composed of shells. 

 One very much mutilated fragment I have referred, doubtfully, to this species. It 

 is a curious fact that there should be such a scarcity, even of individuals, when 

 beds of the same age in other parts of the United States teem with them. 



t Tuomey says that this species is the same as the form of I. Barabini, which 

 I refer above to I. problematicus ? It may possibly be distinct, but I am not 

 prepared to express an opinion, having seen only the one specimen of Morton's, 

 which is a fragment. 



