384 
importance is the occurrence of traces of three pairs of very 
minute, ill-defined, and perhaps continuous glabella furrows. 
In the latter characters the replica of ‘‘Dolichometopus tatei” 
and the three examples of ‘‘Olenellus pritchardi' are in- 
decisive; the neck ring of the most perfect of the M. sub- 
sagittatus specimens displays a well-marked central tubercle. 
or some time I regarded these three—‘‘Dolichometopus 
“Olenellus pritehardi," and ‘‘Microdiscus subsagit- 
tatus’’—as one and the same, and I am not even now sure 
that I have done right in separating the last named from the 
other two; however, this course will probably please those 
who deal in microscopic specific differences. 
Tate's illustrations that of “O. pritchardi” is sub- 
stantially correct, but that of “M. subsagittatus" is 
imaginary. 
Loc. and H or.—Similar to last. 
St. Vincent. Scattered throughout these hand specimens are 
portions of cephalons, thoracic segments, etc., but all frag- 
t 
the two anterior pairs short, deep, and apparently not com- 
lete. e anterior area was very wide, concave, and with 
upturned limb; and, so far as I can see, an absence of the 
bridge uniting the anterior end of the glabella with the limb. 
The cheeks are deltoid more or less; neck-ring wide with 
a central backwardly directed spine; the whole surface 15 
minutely granular. 
subsagittatus. The very wide and concave area anterior to the 
glabella and upturned anterior limb seems to point to this. 
PrYcHoPaRIA(?) AUSTRALIS, H. Woodward. 
; eee. Be. OG. 
Conocephalites australis, H. Woodward: Geol. Mag., i. (3), 
1884, p. 344, pl. xi., fig. 2a, b. 
-~ _ Sp. Chars.—Glabella oblong, almost parallel-sided pos- 
eriorly, the lateral margins barely tapering until near the 
