JOURNAL AND PROCEEDINGS. 53 



variety probably) was found by a quarryman, while the writer 

 secured a fragment of a still larger "Conulaiia" than the specimen 

 described and iigured in " The Niagara Fossils " of Dr. Spencer. 

 The writer regrets at best it can be looked upon as merely a 

 portion representing the existence of a great free-floating Pteropod 

 still earlier than the time " the Chert beds " were deposited in the 

 Silurian Sea. When I mentioned the discovery of the large well- 

 preserved Stricklandinia in the city quarry recently, I stated it 

 reminded me of a specimen in rather indifferent preservation from 

 the adjacent Hancock Quarry. The fossil was not found in situ 

 at the time, so perhaps I erroneously concluded it represented an 

 extremely aged member of the family from the regular Strickla?idinia 

 limestone layer. On describing the Brachiopod to our Chairman, 

 Mr. A. E. Walker, I ascertained he presented to Dr. James Hall, on 

 one of his visits to Hamilton, a Stricklaridinia also obtained under 

 conditions similar to mine. He noticed the dimensions of the shell 

 were considerably in excess of any he had extracted from the true 

 Strickla7idinia bed. On reference to Prof Schuchert's able and 

 interesting work on "The Fossil Brachiopoda, America," I find 

 Hall and Cluke named one from Hamilton, Ont., Stricklandinia 

 Chap7nani. As we have not seen it figured or described, it is impos- 

 sible to say whether this is the very large species or another one. 

 The shell described by the above I*alaeontologists may be added any 

 day to the latest published list in our Proceedings. 



The Fe?itamerus bed holds, in addition to the fossils already 

 mentioned, two distinct Fucoids, perhaps more. A third one seems 

 rather doubtful. I think in a former paper it was stated the under 

 surface of the layer resting on the upper green Clinton shale pre- 

 sented the appearance of blackened and crushed impressions of a 

 plant, which rarely displays a grooved cylindrical surface. It does 

 not branch like Buthotrephis, neither does it produce a tuft of 

 branches like the Licrophyats of Billings. It is difficult to extract a 

 tolerably well preserved specimen in a portable form, owing to the 

 matrix. The writer remarked it may be found also on splitting the 

 block in the interior, and he found such was the case. The flattened 

 stalk was found in several instances. It has lost the bitumenous 

 coloring inside, only possessing a stain-like impression, differing from 

 the remainder of the surroundings. But in two or more cases a 



