Suburban Geology of Richmond, Indiana. 



295 



I have never met with the " thorn-like appendages" which char- 

 acterize this species, and yet these appear to be most common at 

 Cincinnati. This species, with the Isotelus gigas and the Asa- 

 phus caudatus, constitutes all the crustaceans I have been able 

 to recognize. Other fragments in my cabi- Fig. 10. 



net may possibly belong to different genera 

 from these just mentioned; but they are 

 probably too small to give satisfactory indi- 

 cations of their place in the family of trilo- 

 bites. 



I have several other fossils which I have 

 not attempted to arrange in the foregoing 

 catalogue, and two of these I will sketch in 

 this place. Fig. 9, is a congeries of some- 

 what quadrangular fibres, slightly corruga- 

 ted, as if they had been torn from a broad 

 and flat muscle and had contracted, and 

 were then laid upon the surface of the rock. 

 The drawing is nearly as large as the spe- 

 cimen before me. No traces of organism 

 can be detected in the fossil. Is it a fu- 

 coides ? 



The other fossil I have considered the 

 siphuncle of a large orthoceratite, with the 

 form of a few of the chambers retained in 

 the rock ; but as others who have seen it 

 look upon it as a novel specimen, and as a 

 noted eastern geologist, after much hesita- 

 tion, supposed it might be a huge encrinite, I 

 have thought best to exhibit a drawing of it. 



This fossil is more than two feet long, 

 and is about five inches wide at the larger 

 end. The slender portion of it and part of 

 the broader extremity are smooth; but the 

 remainder is as rough and full of shells as 

 any other piece of rock. A transverse sec- 

 tion of the elongated part would present a 

 lenticular figure. 



That other fossils than those enumerated may yet be brought 

 to light in this neighborhood, is probable ; that the foregoing list 



