Mfrriam.) 



John Day Basin. 



283 



" Chamidw. There are several small fragments apparently 

 belonging to an undetermined genus] of Chamidae, showing a 

 structure similar to Coralliochama, but not identical with it. 



" Meretrix varians Gabb. This variable species is widely dis- 

 tributed in the Chico. Whiteaves cites from Vancouver Island, 

 under the name Cytherea nitida Gabb. 



" Ttilina skidegatcnsis Whiteaves. The collection contains a 

 number of specimens referable to this species which was described 

 from Bearskin Bay, Skidegate Inlet, Queen Charlotte Islands. 



" Asap/iis multicostata Gabb. This species, originally described 

 from Crooked River, Oregon, is represented by a single imprint. 

 Linearia suciensis Whiteaves is similar in form and sculpture and 

 may be based on the same species. 



" Honiomya coiiceutrica Gabb. The specimen in the collection is 

 much larger than Gabb's figure and differs somewhat in form, but 

 it is probably like the large specimens which he doubtfully referred 

 to the species, and like those cited from the^Sucia Island by 

 Whiteaves. It is certainly identical with a form in the Geological 

 Survey collection from Texas Springs, California. 



" Scalaria clementina (Michelin)? The single fragmentary speci- 

 men appears to be identical in form and sculpture with the Queen 

 Charlotte Islands species that Whiteaves* has Misted under this 

 name, and earlier figured as 5. albensis(?) The same form occurs 

 at Texas Springs. 



" Desmoceras {Puzozid) daivsoni Whiteaves. A single fragment 

 of an Ammonite in the collection agrees very well with the figures 

 of this species from Queen Charlotte Islands formerly referred to 

 Haploceras batdanti hwt recently named as above. f 



"The whole assemblage of forms in the above lists indicates a 

 horizon at or very near the base of the Chico formation. A similar 

 fauna, with some'additions, occurs in the sandstones at Texas 

 Springs and near Horsetown, Shasta Co., Cal., and has been 

 regarded as proof of the blending of the Shasta and Chico faunas,J 



*Mesozoic Fossils, Vol. I, pt. IV,"p. 287, Ottawa, 1900. 

 fMesozoic Fossils, Vol. I, pt. IV, p. 286. 



jStanton: The Faunas of the Shasta and Chico Formations. Bull. Geo!. 

 Soc. Am., Vol. IV, pp. 245-256. 



