NO. 3 CAMBRIAN AND OZARKIAN TRILOBITES 69 



Genus ARMONIA Walcott 



Armonia Walcott, 1924, Smithsonian Misc. Coll., Vol. 75, No. 2, p. 54. 



Description. — Armonia is characterized by a conical glabella with 

 only traces of furrows. The wide frontal limb is composed of a 

 wide rim and border and the dividing furrow turns back in the center, 

 narrowing the border almost one-half in the genotype. The facial 

 suture diverges moderately in front of the eyes, but rapidly back of 

 them, thus making wide triangular posterolateral limbs. Free cheeks 

 small and without genal spines in the genotype. 



Thorax of the type species with 14 segments which resemble those 

 of Chancia and Elrathia. 



Pygidium relatively large, with three or four axial rings and several 

 pleurae which continue nearly across the pleural lobes. 



Observations. — Armonia differs from Elrathia in its frontal limb, 

 absence of glabellar furrows and relatively larger pygidium. 



Genotype. — Armonia pelops Walcott. 



Range. — ^Upper Cambrian : Southern Appalachians. 



ARMONIA PELOPS Walcott 



Plate 17, figs. 28-31 



Armonia pelops Walcott, 1924, Smithsonian Misc. Coll., Vol. 75, No. 2, 

 p. 54, pi. ID, fig. I. 



The illustrations and notes on the genus present all known features 

 of the species. 



Formation and locality.— Upper Cambrian: (95) Conasauga for- 

 mation. One-half mile (0.8 km.) above Center Road Ford, Cowan 

 Creek, Cherokee County, Alabama. 



Genus BELLEFONTIA Ulrich 



Bcllefontia Ulrich, in Walcott, 1924, Smithsonian Misc. Coll., Vol. 75, 

 No. 2, p. 54. 



Quotation from Dr. Ulrich's manuscript : " Hemigyraspis was pro- 

 posed by Raymond ^ as a subgenus of Niobe Angelin, Asaphus affinis 

 McCoy, a British Upper Tremadoc species being cited as the type. 

 In my opinion A. affinis, as figured by Salter,^ belongs to a genus quite 

 distinct from Niobe which has a well-developed neck ring and a 

 of the Asaphidae. The general aspect oi A. affinis, on the other hand, 

 is decidedly asaphid. In fact, so far as I can see, it differs in no 



^Raymond, P. E. Annals Carnegie Mus., Vol. 7, No. i, p. 41, 1910. 

 ^ Salter, J. W. Monogr. Brit. Trilobites, p. 164, p. 24, figs. 13, 14, 1864. 



