44 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 7G 



So far as known Glaphurus pustulatus is confined to a narrow, 

 sometimes reef-lilce zone that I believe lies at the base of the Upper 

 Chazy limestone at Isle La Motte and other places in the Champlain 

 Valley. 



Paratypes.— Cat. No. 8S051a-h, U.S.N.M. 



GLAPHURUS LATIOK, new species 



Plate 8, Figures 12, 13 



This name is proposed for a rare southern Appalachian repre- 

 sentative of the genus of which only the cranidium has been found. 

 It attained larger dimensions than G. pusttdatus and differs struc- 

 turally from it mainly in that the cranidium is relatively wider 

 posteriorly and that there are only two instead of three transverse 

 rows of spines cross the middle part of the preglabellar field. Other 

 small differences may be observed in comparing the figures of the 

 two species in following plates. 



OcouJTence. — The holotype was found in the Whitesburg lime* 

 stone, 6 miles southwest of Bland, Va. Another was found with 

 Telephus hipunctattos at Pratts Ferry, Ala. 



Holofype.— Cut No. 80552, U.S.n!m. 



GLAPHURINA, new genus 



Glaphurus part Raymond, 1925, Mus. Comp. Zool. Bull., vol. 67, No. 1, p. 130. 



Raymond included at least one of the species referred to this new 

 genus in Glaphuinis when he described Glaphurus decipiens in the 

 work above cited. In the description of the mentioned species he 

 speaks also of southern Appalachian specimens of cranidia that he 

 identifies with it. One of these he collected from a limestone south- 

 east of Bluff City, Tenn., that he calls " Lower Lenoir," and this most 

 probably is the form for which I am proposing the name Glaphurlna 

 falcifera. The other he obtained " from the Holston limestone in 

 the Catawba Valley, north of Salem, Va.," and this may be of the 

 species for which I am proposing the name Glaphunna hrevicula. 

 That these two southern cranidia are not strictly conspecific is 

 rendered highly probable by the widely different ^ones in which they 

 were found. If they are, as I think, clearly distinguishable, strati- 

 graphic considerations demand their separation under names of their 

 own. With such loose identifications of fossil species progress and 

 definite results in working out the sequence of Ordovician deposits 

 and events in the Appalachian Valley, or indeed any where else, are 

 simply impossible. 



Whether either of these southern Appalachian Valley species is 

 the same as the Mingan Islands species can not be determined with- 

 out direct comparison of specimens. Now I can say only this, that 



