248 PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW-YorRK. 
crushed or absorbed. The portion of the cheek supporting the inner and upper margin of 
the eye still remains, in the form of a subconical tubercle. 
Fig. 3 2. View of the same specimen, showing the caudal shield and front of the buckler. 
This specimen, and one or two others which I have obtained, are scarcely recognizable 
as the same species, from the lobes of the glabella being obliterated, and the eye appearing 
more like the preceding species in form, or altogether obliterated. The species is clearly 
contractile, as well as those having fewer articulations in the caudal shield. 
Position and locality. This species occurs in the lower shaly layers at Middleville, asso- 
ciated with Ceraurus. It is likewise found in the higher part of the rock at Watertown, 
Jefferson county, but has not been observed in the succeeding shales. (State Collection.) 
305. 2. PHACOPS? LATICAUDUS. 
Pu. LXIV. Fig. 3. 
Pygidium broadly subtriangular, the middle lobe with about fourteen segments ; lateral 
lobes each with ten or more undivided segments, which terminate in a thickened continuous 
margin. 
It is impossible to decide satisfactorily in regard to this species, since the surface markings 
are entirely obliterated in the specimen. The form of this part of the species is very similar 
to that on Pl. 60, fig. 1; but the axial lobe extends nearly to the posterior margin, and the 
segments of the lateral lobes are less numerous and of a different character. An equal 
difference will be perceived when compared with Asaphus tyrannus of Murcutson, before 
cited. 
Position and locality. In the upper subcrystalline portion of the Trenton limestone, at 
Turin, Lewis county. On the authority of Dr. Bupp. (Cabinet of Dr. Emmons.) 
306. 3. ASAPHUS? NODOSTRIATUS. 
Pu. LXI. Figs. 1 a, 0d. 
Several fragments of the form here represented have been obtained, but nothing which 
will enable us to decide satisfactorily as to the character of the entire animal. The fragment 
appears to be the middle lobe of the buckler or glabella, and is in form very similar to the 
glabella of Asaphus angustifrons ; but the surface markings are different. 
It is impossible to decide positively whether this fragment be a glabella, or the labrum 
of some species, the form being similar to the labrum of Catymene. The surface markings 
are sufficient to distinguish it from any other species known to me in the Trenton limestone. 
Fig. 1 a. The fragment, natural size. 
Fig. 1 5. A magnified portion of the surface, showing the lamellose striw, with small nodes which 
interrupt the lines. 
Position and locality. All the specimens known, are from the lower part of the Trenton 
limestone, near Watertown. (State Collection.) 
