Additional Notes on Goniograptus Thureant. 5038 
little import, in that paper (loc. cit. supre,) whilst one or 
two less obvious corrections are hereby submitted.’ 
On page 426 and line 12 from the bottom the text reads: 
“The angle which these celluliferous stipes make with the 
general direction of the arm is generally 450°” The angle 
here meant is 45° not 450°. 
On the same page, in the preceding paragraph, it is 
stated of the arms that “all four are sub-equal, disposed 
regularly and symmetrically, so as to form a large + shaped 
figure.” This statement might be modified so as to indicate 
the exact angles made by the arms; that they are disposed 
so as to form a polypary with two series of arms and areas 
included within or between the arms, one set of which con- 
tains an angle of seventy-five degrees,and the other or larger 
angle, one hundred and five degrees. 
The excellent figures by Mr. Lambe are exact reproduc- 
tions of the specimens in the national collections of the 
Geological Survey Museum, Ottawa, and indicate admirably 
the mode of growth of the polypary. Only in fig. 2, the 
smaller specimen, are there any hydrothece visible. 
Although the material very kindly placed at the disposal 
of the writer by Dr.Selwyn and Mr. Whiteaves is excellent, 
and presents new features respecting the morphology and 
development of Goniograptus, it is nevertheless hoped that 
additional material will be forthcoming whereby all the 
generic and other relations of this interesting member of 
the disc-bearing group of graptolites can be studied and 
ascertained. 
It might be interesting here to add that the following 
species occur in the same measures with Goniograptus 
Thureani, McCoy var. Selwyni, nobis, viz :— 
Tetragraptus quadri-brachiatus, Hall; T. approximatus, 
Nicholson; 7’. fruticosus, Hall; T. serra, Brongniart ; (=T7. 
bryonoides, Wall) ; Dichograptus octo-brachiatus, Hall ; D. (?) 
ramulus, Mall; Drityograptus sp., and Lingula Trene, 
Billings. 
' The paper in question was published during the author’s absence 
in ae” so that he had not opportunity of correcting the proof. 
