NORTH AMERICAN GRAPTOLITES 303 
From a general survey of the above collections, we may, I think, suspect that 
several species imply a higher horizon than the main (Dichograpsus flexilis) zone. 1 
should at present name here (questioningly): PAyllograptus anna, the Diplograpside 
generally, Glossograpsus, Dictyonema trregulare, Thamnograptus anna. 
That this classification by no means exhausts the zone problem of our Calciferous, 
may be inferred from the fact that other collections imply in the peculiar association 
of species exhibited at least two other horizons. On them I am not, however, at 
present prepared to report in detail, and will only say that in one Phyllograptus typus 
(which seems to be absent from the main zone, the genus being there represented by 
great numbers of 7. ¢/¢cifolius mancus, Lapw. M/S.), is the dominant species, and that 
the other is characterized mainly, if not almost entirely by several Dzctyonema species 
which are absent from the main Point Levis zone. This last feature (that the zones 
are for the most part mzd¢ually complementary) is a striking and important one. 
Finally, 1 may say that the table here given, classifies every species, I believe, 
ever recorded, except certain faunas reported by Mr. Ami (in Ells, Ann. Rep. Geol. 
Sury. Can. for 1887 (1889), Pt. K). The twelve Calciferous faunas reported were not 
classified into zones. Careful study of them leads me to think that they harmonize 
fairly well with the division here suggested, viz., into a lower zone rich in (especially 
dichograptid) species, and an upper zone with a much less rich fauna in which the 
diplograptid element is conspicuous. 
Newly introduced species whose horizon is not clearly defined are listed in the 
miscellaneous column. 
2Stage d of Division 3 of Matthew (reference, Note 2, Cambrian table). 
3Tabulated from Hall (Canad. Org. Rem., Dec. II., 1865, pp. 68-142). 
4See last paragraph of Note I. 
5 Tabulated from Hall (doc. ci¢., in Note 3, above), and from Lapworth (Trans. 
Roy. Soc. Can., 1886, V., Sect, IV., p. 184). 
6 Identification by Lapworth from specimens sent (in JZS. report to author). 
7 From a loose bowlder. 
8’‘[his species fde Ami (Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 1891, II, table p. 495), occurs in 
the Calciferous. On p. 492 ‘the only list in the paper which contains this species), to 
the specific diagnosis is added a “ ?”’ In this connection I may say that I identified 
a specimen in the Nevada collection (the same horizon) as cagz/arzs Emmons, but 
later, after obtaining Emmons’ species at Stockport, found the Nevada specimen to be 
Thamnograptus anna Hall. 
2The form found by Mr. Ami (Ann. Rep. Can. Surv. for 1887 (1889), p. 50K) in 
the (upper) Calciferous, and referred by him to Climacograptus scalaris Hisinger, is in 
all probability, this species. It could not be C. sca/ards, inasmuch as that species is 
nowhere else found below the very summit of the Ordovician (Brachiopod schists of 
Sweden; and, as var. zormalis Lapw., at base of Upper Silurian in Britain). See 
also note 21. 
1° This species, listed by Ami (in Ells, Zoc. c#¢., p. 50K), can hardly be Cepfhalo- 
grapsus folium His., as that species is known only in the highest beds of the Ordo- 
