ART. 21 OEDOVICIAN TEILOBITES ULKICH 45 



if the figure of " a nearly complete cranidium," which presumably 

 represents the largest of the four cranidia collected by Professor 

 Twenhofel on Bald Island, is reasonably correct, it can not be the 

 same species as either of the southern forms nor the same as the 

 Champlain Valley species that I am calling Glaphunna lamottensis. 

 Still, I see no reason to doubt that the Mingan Islands species also 

 belongs to this genus and, if the new genus is accepted, it will here- 

 after be known as Glaphurina decipiens. 



These apparently four species all differ from true Glaphurus in 

 lacking the preglabellar field ^Yhich in that genus intervenes as a 

 broad spinose band between the glabella and the anterior furrow and 

 rim. They differ further in lacking the anterior glabellar furrow 

 though a suggestion of it occurs in Glaphurina falcifera. Finally 

 the surface of the cranidium is merely pustulose and not spiny as 

 in Glaphiums. 



Genotype. — Glaphurina lamottensis., new species. 



Occurrence. — Lower and Upper Chazyan, Champlain Valley, 

 Mingan Islands, Virginia, and eastern Tennessee. 



GLAPHURINA LAMOTTENSIS, new species 



Plate 8, Figures 14-16 



Two cranidia, neither complete yet both in reasonably good con- 

 dition, are available of this species. The three views of the larger 

 are as nearly correct as they could be made. They fail mainly in 

 that the smaller set of surface pustules, or rather small granules, 

 which are scattered between the larger set and clearly visible in the 

 photographs, do not show in the halftone reproduction. In the tri- 

 convex anterior outline and in the general form of the glabella the 

 dorsal views of these cranidia resemble Raymond's figure of G. de- 

 cipiens but the sides of the glabella are more curved and more con- 

 vergent to the front so that the glabella is narrower anteriorly and 

 less quadrate and the middle part of the tri-convex anterior outline 

 of the cranidium shorter than it appears to be in the typical form of 

 Raymond's species. If the concerned parts are accurately repre- 

 sented in that illustration it seems improbable that these Champlain 

 Valley specimens can be of his species. 



Comparison of their respective figures on Plates 7 and 8 shows 

 clearly enough that G. lamottensis is quite distinct also from both 

 G. hremcula and G. falcifera. As will be mentioned in following 

 notes on the latter there is another as yet unnamed species in the 

 bed that supplied the types of G. falcifera that is a nearer ally of 

 G. lamottensis than either of the named forms from southern Appa- 

 lachian localities. 



