BLACK-RIVER LIMESTONE. 
57 
contact with the external shell. Fragments like this one are of frequent occurrence, inducing 
a belief that it is a distinct species; and the figure is given here for the purpose of explaining 
the manner in which such a section is produced, which maybe either ty a previous bending 
of the shell, or from wearing down unevenly upon the surface. 
Fig. 1 c. A longitudinal section, similar to the last, but the shell not bent; the direction of the section is 
nearly in the ventral and dorsal lines. Septa and outer shell showing double laminae. 
Fig. 1 d. A longitudinal section, showing the siphuncle apparently central, which is due to a wearing 
down from the ventral side, and consequently leaving the siphon equidistant from the two 
lateral margins of the shell. 
Fig. 1 e. A similar section to the last, both of which exhibit more or less distinctly the double laminae 
of the outer shell and septa. 
In figs. 1 b, c, e, the double laminae of the outer shell and septa are not so clearly dis¬ 
tinguishable, the interspaces in the fossil being filled up by calcareous matter, so that both 
shell and septa appear thickened. In 1 a and 1 d, particularly the latter, the double laminae 
of the septa are quite distinctly preserved, the interspaces being empty. This structure will 
be more fully illustrated when treating of the generic character of the Ortiiocerata. 
Plate XVII. 
Fig. 1. A fragment of the same species, showing the siphon directly in contact with the ventral side of 
the shell, a portion of which remains on the lower part of the specimen. There is also a 
slight irregularity in the size of the annulations, which is a common occurrence. 
Fig. 1 a. Transverse section of the last, showing the wrinkled inner surface of the siphon at the points 
of contraction.* 
Fig. 1 b. A longitudinal section, passing through the siphuncle : the interior is here filled with stony 
matter; but in other specimens, the inner surface of the tube presents the same wrinkled 
appearance along the contracted portions as is represented above, fig. 1 a. 
In presenting so many figures of this species, the object has been to prevent misapprehen¬ 
sion, and to present to the student in the science the most obvious features, and those 
apparent variations which he might seize upon to form distinct species. Doubtless they will 
be presented under other aspects ; but it is believed that a careful study and comparison of 
these figures may enable one to detect the important characteristics, and decide their identity 
with these forms. 
In the Transactions of the Geological Society of London, Second series, Vol. i. pi. 30, are 
to be found some analogous forms ; and if there be no fallacy in these, which I somewhat 
suspect, there are several species indicated. From the geographical position of these fossils, 
it may be inferred that their geological position is identical witli those of New-York. 
Position and locality. In the Black-river limestone, associated with Gonioceras , Lituites , 
Columnaria, &c. &c. Watertown and Henderson Bay, Jefferson county ; Copenhagen and 
Lowville, Lewis county ; rarely in the Mohawk Valley, Lake Huron, &c. {State Collection.) 
* See figures of Actinoceras in Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 2d series, Vol. v. pi. 19. 
[Palaeontology.] 
