8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 76 



Pratts Ferry, Alabama. The other genus, for which the name 

 GlapJmrina is proposed, comprises a number of closely related 

 species to one or more of which Raymond ^*^ applied the name 

 Glaphw^'us decipiens. Raymond cites the occurrence of cranidia 

 of this species, among them the holotypes from Bald Island, Mingan 

 Islands, and adds that he " obtained a cranidium from the Lower 

 Lenoir at Bluff City, Tenn., and another from the Holston lime- 

 stone in the Catawba Valley, north of Salem, Va." If the latter 

 two specimens are actually indistinguishable it is the only case of 

 specific identity of Holston and Lenoir, not to say " Lower Lenoir," 

 fossils known to me. I have two cranidia from the bed east of Bluff 

 City that he calls " Lower Lenoir," but they are not strictly com- 

 parable with the figure of the holotype of Raymond's species. I 

 have also a good cranidium from the Holston at Lexington, Va. 

 But this also is not precisely like the holotype, nor is it the same as 

 the much older Bluff City form. Finally, the collections before me 

 comprise two cranidia of a Glaphmnna from the reefy Glaphurus 

 pustulatus bed at the base of the Upper Chazyan on Isle La Motte 

 in Lake Champlain. But these specimens also are not quite like 

 those from the Holston and the " Lower Lenoir," nor do they agree 

 with Raymond's figure of the Mingan Islands holotype of G. de- 

 cipiens. Apparently there are four distinguishable varieties or 

 species of Glaphurina, and it does not help us much in working out 

 problems of stratigraphic correlation to ignore the small differences 

 that distinguish them. 



Briefly stated and as shown by figures in Plates 7 and 8,^^ the 

 proposed new genus Glaphurvna^ of which Glaphurina Imnottensis^ 

 new species, is the selected genotype, is distinguished from Gla- 

 phurus mainly by absence of the convex band between the an- 

 terior side of the glabella and the anterior rim. In other words, 

 the fixed cheeks in Glaphums are connected by a broad similarly 

 pustulated band between the glabella and the anterior rim, whereas 

 in Glaphurina the glabella is separated from the rim only by a 

 narrow furrow. Except that the eyes are much smaller and the 

 free cheeks lack the long palpebral band, the general aspect ol 

 the cranidium of Glaphv/rina is practically the same as in Telephus. 

 Although known only by cranidia it seems improbable that the 

 family relationship of Glaphur'ma and Glaphw^s will be ques- 

 tioned. Assuming this without further argument, the assignment 

 of both to the Telephidae is rendered fairly reasonable by general 

 agreement of the pygidium, thoracic segments, and free cheeks of 

 Glaphurus with Teleplius. Figures of these parts of G. pustulatus 



lOMus. Comp. Zool. Bull., vol. 67, No. 1, p. 1330, pi. 8, fig. 20, 1925. 

 " The writer had planned to discuss these genera in a separate paper, but time to write 

 it is not at present available. 



