Lorraine Faunas of New York and Quebec 
311 
that of Lophospira howdeni. The chief difference between Lopho- 
spira heatrice and typical Lophospira howdeni consists in its larger 
apical angle, apparently averaging about 35 degrees but varying 
from 30 to 38 degrees. This produces a shorter shell, so that the 
greater number of specimens, in their present state of preservation, 
present only four or five volutions although the complete shells 
probably possessed seven or eight. 
The types formed part of a small group of shells in a small tray 
in the collections of the Geological Survey of Canada, at the Vic- 
toria Memorial Museum, at Ottawa, Canada. They were accom- 
panied by the original printed label used for the Billings types, 
bearing the following information: Murchisonia heatrice, Billings. 
Riviere des Hurons. Hudson river group. Collected by James 
Richardson. 8A is numbered 8417; 8B, 8417a. This species 
was named, but not described or figured, by Billings. 
Similar, if not identical forms, exist in the Richmond exposures 
three-fourths of a mile west of Vars, and also along the Nicolet 
River, southwest of Ste. Monique. They were not detected in 
the great Lorraine section, along this river. 
44. Ruedemannia abbreviata, Hall 
The species described by Hall as Murchisonia uniangulata, 
variety ahhreviata, in the Paleontology of New York, vol. I, page 
304, belongs to the Robusta section of the genus Lophospira, as 
divided by Ulrich in his Monograph on the Lower Silurian Gas- 
teropoda of Minnesota. The type of Lophospira ahhreviata was 
found at Pulaski, in rock containing Calymene, Orthoceras with 
transverse striae as in Orthoceras lamellosum, Cyrtolites ornatus, 
Hormotoma gracilis, Byssonychia radiata, and the common Lor- 
raine form of Dalmanella. Apical angle between 60 and 65 de- 
grees. The transverse striae form a strongly reentrant angle 
toward the peripheral band. This band is tricarinate, or trilin- 
eate; in typical specimens, the middle line is scarcely more 
prominent than the other two; the intermediate spaces are con- 
cave. The slope of the whorl above the peripheral band is gently 
convex excepting in the immediate vicinity of the band where it 
is gently concave. That part of the whorl which is below the 
peripheral band is evenly and somewhat more strongly convex. 
Since two specimens are present on the same rock fragment. 
