ANGELINA. Ill 



in both Linnarsson's and Brogger's Gyclognathus. Moreover, the glabella is much 

 too short and the eye too far back for that genus. 



Horizon and Locality. — Upper Lingula Flags : Penmorfa Church, Portmadoc. 



Genus ANGELINA, Salter. 



Salter's description of the genus Angelina, 1 is as follows: Depressed, head 

 smooth, and with long posterior spines; eyes small, sub-median, without ocular 

 ridge ; glabella lobeless. Body segments fourteen to fifteen, with an angular fulcrum, 

 faceted for rolling up. Tail of a few (four or five) segments. Labrum emarginate. 



The most important addition to be made to this description is with regard to 

 the course of the facial suture, which is not quite correctly represented in Salter's 

 figures. The two sutures meet in front in the median line. From there they run 

 obliquely outwards across the margin, curve backwards and very slightly inwards 

 to the eye, from which they run outwards and backwards to the posterior margin. 



In spite of the abundance of Angelina sedgivicki in the Tremadoc of North 

 Wales, hardly any representative of the genus has been found elsewhere. 



Whitfield," in 1884, described a form from the Cambian of Vermont, U.S.A., 

 to which he gave the name Angelina hitchcochi ; but, as he himself pointed out, it 

 does not altogether agree with Salter's definition of the genus. In particular it- 

 possesses strongly marked ocular ridges, and the number of thoracic segments is 

 only twelve. Walcott 3 subsequently made it the type of a new genus, which he 

 called Protypus. As has already been remarked in the account of Beltella, 

 Whitfield's species bears a close resemblance to Beltella depressa. 



Matthew 4 has described and figured a head from the Tremadoc of Cape Breton, 

 which he thinks may belong to a young Angelina. It differs from the adult 

 chiefly in the greater .<ize of the eyes and in the presence of strong ocular ridges. 



Reed 5 has suggested that Salter's Conocorijphe ? verisimilis, described above 

 as Beltella verisimilis, should be referred to Angelina, and thinks that the 

 differences from the type may be due to immaturity. The difficulties in the way 

 of accepting this view have already been dealt with; but it may be observed that 

 Beltella and Angelina appear to be closely related to each other. 



In the collections of the Vetenskaps Akademi in Stockholm I saw, more than 

 twenty years ago, a specimen from Yerrestad in Skane labelled Angelina salteri, 

 Holm, but I have been unable to find any published figure or description. According 



1 Brit. Organ. Kem., dec. xi, pt. vii. 



2 Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. i, no. 5, p. 148, pi. xiv, fig. 13. 



:i Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., no. 30 (1886), p. 211, pi. xxxi, fig. 4 ; Tenth Ann. Rep. U.S. Geol. Surv. 

 (1890), p. 655, pi. xcviii, fig. 6. 



4 Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. New Brunswick, vol. iv, p. 413, pi. xviii, fig. 9 ; Report on the Cambrian 

 Rocks of Cape Breton (1903), p. 232, pi. xviii, fig. 9. 



5 Geol. Mag. [4], vol. vii (1900), p. 256. 



