46 THE GEOLOGY OF BELLEVILLE 
CEPHALOPODS: 
Orthoceras (Endoceras) proteiforme ; O. bilineatum; O. 
(undetermined species) ; O. tenuifilum, or a related species with beaded 
siphuncle. 
TRILOBITES : 
Asaphus platycephalus (= Isotelus gigas, exceedingly common in a 
fragmentary state) ; A. megistos (rare). Ceraurus pleurecanthemus 
(very abundant). Calymene Blumenbachi: (tolerably common, and 
well preserved). Trinucleus concentricus (two fragments only, found 
at Shannonville). 
In the above list it will be seen that I have placed the coral com- 
monly known as Chetetes lycoperdon, under the genus Stenopora, of 
Lonsdale. D’Orbigny’s Monticulipora, to which genus the branched 
form has been referred, appears to agree in all essential respects with 
Stenopora, and to be thus an unnecessary addition to the list of 
Favositian genera. Calamopora of Goldfuss (including amongst 
others, Favosites, Stenopora and Chetetes) can scarcely be employed 
without risk of misconception, and is therefore now almost universally 
abandoned. Favosites differs essentially from Stenopora and Chetetes 
in possessing perforated cell-walls. The imperforate favositoidean 
corals fall into two series: the one exhibiting fissiparous and the 
other gemmiparous reproduction. The former show in the fracture 
the interior of the tubes, and constitute the genus Chetetes. The 
latter show the owtstde of the cell-walls (reproduction taking place by 
the lateral interpolation of new tubes) and they form the genus Steno- 
pora. To this genus, if the above definition as given by McCoy and 
others, hold good, our so called Chetetes undoubtedly belong. This 
admitted, our common forms, the Calamopora fibrosa of Goldfuss, may 
be legitimately placed under McCoy’s Stenopora jfibrosa, and conve- 
niently sub-divided into three varieties: the branching form (variety 
vamosa) ; the flat, cup-shaped or salver-shaped hemispherical form 
(variety concava) ; and the globular or true ‘ puff-ball”’ form (variety 
globosa or lycoperdon). It often happens that whilst one variety is 
exceedingly abundant at a special locality, the other two are altogether 
absent, McCoy (“ British Paleozoic Fossils,” p. 24,) makes but two 
varieties : lycopodites and regularis, the latter including the branched 
and polymorphous forms; but those given above, so far as regards 
Canadian examples, will be found I think of more convenient adoption. 
