352 CARBONIFEROUS FORMATIONS AND KAUNAS (IK COLORADO. 



CH0NETE8 Fischer do Waldheini, 1830. 

 Chonetes flemingi Norwood and Pratten, 



PI. I, figs. 17, 18, 18a. 



1854. Choneles flemingii. Norwood and Pratten, Acad. Nat. Soi. Philadelphia, Jour., (2S.), vol. 3, p 

 26, pi. 2, figs. 5a-c. (Imprint of whole volume, 1855.) 



[Coal Measures] : Ten miles northwest of Richmond, Mo. 

 1859. Chonetes flemmffi {?). Shumard, Acad. Sci. St. Louis, Trans., vol. 1, p. 390. 



White Permian limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 



1891. Choneles flemingi. Keyes, Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Proc, p. 247. 

 Lower Coal JMeasures: Des Moines, Iowa. 



1892. Chonetes flemingi. Hall and Clarke, Pal. New York, vol. 5, pt. 1, pi. 15B, fig. 1. 

 Coal Measures: Illinois. r'!" 



1895. Chonetes flemingi. Keyes, Missouri Geol. Surv., vol. 5, p. 54, pi. jJ^ figs. 6a, b. (Date of imprint, 

 1894.) 

 Upper Coal Measures: Kansas City, Mo. 



In identifying this species, comparison has been made with a rather extensive 

 series from the Mississippi Valley. I feel little hesitation in referring both sets of 

 specimens to the same species, which I take to be Chonetes fiemingi Norwood and 

 Pratten. The latter has been regarded bj' Schuchert and Weller as a synonym for 

 Ch. variolatus d'Orbigny. 



My study of this material aroused the suspicion that Gh. flemmgi and Oh. ver- 

 neuiliomv^ were proposed for divergent variations of the same type. One would be 

 led by Norwood and Pratten's work to conclude that Oh. flemingi could be distin- 

 guished from Oh. verneuilianus by being larger, less strongly marked by fold and 

 sinus, by having seven instead of four spines on either side of the beak, by having 

 more numerous strisB (150 instead of 100), and by the pitted character of the surface 

 lying between them. The difference in number of striae might be largely offset by 

 size, so that this factor would probably have to be disregarded in discriminating the 

 two species. 



In the collections examined, although thej' had been for the most pai"t identified 

 with Oh. verneuilianus, I find that almost all the material can be correctly referred 

 only to Oh. fl.emingi. In regard to size, of course the greatest diversitj^ occurs, but 

 in almost ever}' instance specimens were found which attained a much larger size 

 than that cited by the authors of Oh. rerneuilianus. Exception must, however, be 

 made in favor of a small collection of about a dozen specimens from Casey ville, 

 111., to which reference will be made later on. These specimens are all small, very 

 few attaining a greater transverse diameter than 7 mm. 



It was not in eveiy case possible to ascertain the number of spines possessed by 

 each specimen, but almost always more than four could be counted on even the 

 smaller examples. As manj^ as nine have been observed, but the most common 



