Hyatt.] 336 [April 4, 



Pharciceras, 1 nobis, this genus can be readily separated from 

 Sandbergeoceras which it very closely resembles in form, and in 

 the general aspect of the sutures, by means of the divided ventral 

 lobes and the smoothness of the whorls. Phar. (Gon.) tridens sp. 

 Sandb. Verst. Nass. pi. 4, tig. 2, is discoidal, and (Gon.) clavilobum 

 ibid. pi. 8, fig. 3, is very involute. There are two pairs of lateral 

 lobes in tridens and a small umbilical lobe, and two pairs of dorsal 

 lobes, and in clavilobum Sandberger figures four pairs of lateral 

 lobes. Phar. (Gon.) multlseptatum, as figured by Quenstedt, 

 Die Ceph. pi. 3, fig. 3, is a member of this genus. 



Schistoceras, 2 nobis, includes a single species which is not 

 figured or described, but can be readily distinguished by its large, 

 bottle-shaped, siphonal saddle. This is the only characteristic by 

 which it differs from Prolecanites. The two arms of the ventral 

 lobe are widely separated, and there are only three pairs of lateral 

 lobes and a small umbilical lobe with two pairs of dorsal lobes. 

 The lobes are hastate, and the saddles more rounded and club- 

 shnped, as in Prolecanites. The first pair of saddles have dorsal 

 correspondents and the annular lobe is deep [and acute. The 

 young is costated and the sutures closely resemble those of Phar- 

 ciceras tridens, from which this form is apparently directly de- 

 rived. 



[Triainocerae.] 



Triainoceras, 3 nobis, includes but one species which can be 

 separated from Sandbergeoceras only by reason of the transitional 

 condition of the ventral lobe. This has a trident shaped division 

 caused, as in other forms and especially as in Pronorites, by the 

 development of two small pointed saddles on either side of the 

 large funnel lobe, in place of the development of a large median 

 saddle carrying up with it the funnel lobe as in most other genera 

 of Goniatitinae. This genus shows that Pronorites was derived 

 directly from the radical Sandbergeoceras, and that its resem- 

 blances to Prolecanites were • due to parallelism and, therefore, 



lecanites, but we find this connection doubtful. Undoubtedly the sutures have quite 

 similar outlines, but if we compare them with those of Celtites, pi. 28, fig. 5, there is 

 a very close agreement, indicating the same stock rather than the more remote one of 

 Prolecanites. 

 l <t>apKts> a wrinkle. 3 Tpfaiva, a trident. 



2 Sxwanrds, cleft. 



