50 
BULLETIN OF THE LABORATORIES 
species is referred to the genus Proetus to which it can hardly be as- 
signed upon any of the various definitions of that genus. 
The case of Proetus mis sour tens is ^ Shum. is likewise somewhat 
confused. Proetus auriculatus, H. is said to extend from the Chem- 
ung into the Waverly group, while as a matter of fact it was originally 
described from Granville, O., where our author states P. missourien- 
sis is found. Though originally referred to the Chemung these strata 
are typical Waverly. Prof. Hall, moreover, identifies his species with 
P. missouriensis. Nevertheless Mr. Vogdes states that in specimens 
from Cameron, Missouri the “genal angles appear to he obtusely 
rounded off,” and they are so drawn. Certainly the head figured on 
Plate III, of that paper differs widely from that drawn by Meek, which 
is copied for comparison, and is totally unlike the Ohio specimens in 
the character of the movable cheeks. 
Prof. Hall in his last report insists that this species is a Proetus 
though recognizing the specific identity of Missouri and Ohio speci- 
mens. The question is largely one of individual opinion as to the 
limits of the two genera. Though the writer would prefer to restrict 
the application of the name Proetus to species of the group of P. bo- 
hemicus^ Corda, reserving those with large basal lobes and but two dis- 
tinct furrows upon the glabella and longer head-shield for the genus 
Phillipsia, the question must be decided by the consensus of palaeon- 
tologists. 
The catalogue of Mr. Vogdes as thus corrected includes from the 
Waverly the following five species of Proetus : P. auriculatus^ P. logan- 
ensis, P. peroccidens, P. t ellipticus and P. tennessensis, but it is still un- 
certain how far the Wahsatch strata referred to the Waverly are really 
equivalent to the original Ohio formation, thus two of these are ren-^ 
dered doubtful, viz : P. loganensis and P. peroccidens. To these 
must be added four species referred to Phillipsia, P. doris, P. insignis, 
P. meramacensis and P. rockfordensis of which some may prove to 
belong to Proetus. 
The list is then completed with Brachymetopus (?) lodiensis making 
ten species from the Waverly and its equivalents. To these we shall 
add seven additional species, all from the Waverly in Ohio and this by 
no means exhausts the known species, for several forms are too im- 
perfectly represented for intelligible description. It must be noticed 
at the outset that the Waverly is not a homogeneous formation but a 
convenient term for a series of strata in Ohio which are more or less 
