30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 7a 



TELEPHUS SPINIFEROUS CALHOUNENSIS. new variety 



Plate 3, Figure 12 



This name is proposed provisionally for a single cranidium that 

 has lost its posterior part but retains its anterior and middle parts 

 in reasonably good condition. What remains of it recalls T. spinif- 

 erus rather more than any of the other species known to me. On this 

 account and pending discovery of information respecting the specifi- 

 cally important occipital ring and spine present purposes are suffi- 

 ciently served by classifying it as a variety of this species. At least 

 two peculiarities warrant its separation from typical T. spiniferus and 

 even suggest that a complete head would demonstrate quite as close 

 relations to such other species as T. mohergi^ T. Sinuatus, and T. hllu- 

 natiis. In fact, I am satisfied that when such specimens are discovered 

 they will give ample grounds for the promotion of the variety to the 

 rank of a distinct species. At present, however, we are mainly con- 

 cerned with the features that distinguish it from typical T. spiniferus. 

 The first of these, as the reader will observe in comparing their dorsal 

 views in Plate 3, lies in the outline of the gabella, which diverges 

 more rapidly backward, then curves inward before reaching the 

 occipital furrow and gives a greater width to the posterior fourth 

 of the glabella in the variety than in the older typical form of the 

 species. The second difference pertains to the presence of shallow 

 curved furrows in the posterior two-thirds of the glabella in the 

 variety and their absence in the holotype of the typical form of T. 

 spiniferus. 



Occy/rrence. — Seventy-five feet beneath the top of the Athens shale^ 

 bluff on north side of Hiwassee River, li/^ miles east of Calhoun, 

 Tenn. 



Holotype.— C^i. No. 80538, U.S.N.M. 



TELEPHUS SINUATUS, new species 



Plate 3, Figure 15 



A single cranidium from the Whitesburg limestone at Lexington^ 

 Va., reminds in its occipital spine and in the outline and moderate 

 convexity of the glabella of T. spiniferus. Possibly it represents a 

 near progenitor of that species, but certain of its features differ so 

 obviously from the corresponding parts of T. spiniferus that it seems 

 unwise to refer the Lexington specimen to the same species. 

 Although recognizing the possibility that future collections may 

 bridge the distinctions now so strikingly displayed, the chances that 

 the required intermediate stages may be found are thought to be too 

 remote to warrant i^norinir structural differences that if recognized 



