﻿162 



Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 



The authors were uncertain as to the affinities of this fossil, but thought it 

 probable it was the "long lost borer of Silurian Age." 



Three species of this genus have been described, viz. : W. rugow, 

 M. & D., W. cookana, M. & D., and W. sulcata, James. The first of 

 these is represented as a flexuous body with ridges in pairs, one on each 

 side of the body, and forming an angle with each other on top of the body. 

 It seems to be the impression of the under side of the flexible arm of a 

 star-fish, rather than any distinct organism. 



The second species, 11'. cookana, M. & I)., is smaller, with the ridges 

 less evident, and in no way so marked as the first. It is, apparently, the 

 impression of some portion of a crinoid, either a part of the stem or one of 

 the fingers. 



The third species, W. sulcata, James, is much larger than either of 

 the others. It is longer, thicker, with a depression running along the cen- 

 tre, and a few obscure markings along either edge. This mark, different 

 from either of the others, seems to be a burrow. 



Only a few specimens of these obscure fossils have been found. The 

 figures show no structure whatever, the descriptions make no mention of 

 any. They have but little definite form, and different specimens of the 

 same species present many variations; in fact, no two are alike. Whatever 

 else they may be, it is very questionable if they are the remains of worms, 

 those perishable organisms without signs of a skeleton of any sort which 

 could be preserved; without appendages by means of which they could* 

 leave impressions on the mud; without structure which is capable of resist- 

 ing the process of decomposition. Further, these marks are found on sur- 

 faces which have obviously been exposed to atmospheric agencies, and 

 are also in situations where there is the least possible probability of their 

 being preserved from decay. Had they possessed a solid internal frame- 

 work or appendages likely to leave an impress on the mud, there might be 

 some ground for referring the marks to the remains of worms, or at least 

 organisms. Annelids possess none of these, and as the specimens'show 

 no signs of any structure, it is safe to consign the genus with its species to 

 the limbo of the improbable, and .wipe from the catalogues three more use- 

 less names. 



"Notes on the Tertiary of Alabama and Mississippi, with Descrip- 

 tions of New Species,'" by T. H. Aldrich. "Notes on Tertiary Fossils, 

 Rare or Little Known," by T. H. Aldrich. Both these papers were pub- 

 lished in the July number of the Journal. 



