1870.] 
[Winchell. 
species Amculct longispina and acanthoptera, Hall, are also abundant, as 
well as a BhyncJionella, which differs from any known Waverly species. 
It seems, therefore, from these indications, that the line separating the 
Chemung and Waverly, passes between these two horizons ; and that w r e 
have here positive paleontological and stratigraphical evidence of the su¬ 
perposition of the Waverly above the Chemung, as I have heretofore ar¬ 
gued. 118 
The fossils from Tennessee identitled with species of the age of the 
Marshall (or Waverly) Group, will undoubtedly be regarded as possessing 
considerable interest, as this is the first paleontological determination of 
the extension of this gr?>up into that State. They are mostly embraced 
in a thin deposit of dark, silicious, bituminous shales, emitting an agree¬ 
able.aromatic odor, 119 and resembling in physical characters, the shales of 
the Kinderhook Group, of Illinois. This resemblance suggests the belief 
that the Hickman shales of Tennessee are a prolongation of the Kinder¬ 
hook shales ; and that they will yet be traced along both sides of the Coal 
Measures, from Indiana and Illinois across the western extremity of Ken¬ 
tucky. 120 
Zaphrentis Ida? Win. (Proc. A. Hat. Sci., Phil., July, 1865). From 
Hickman county, Tenn., and Sciotoville, Ohio, (See Andrews’ section). 
The Tennessee specimens are without epitheca, and lack the profound 
winkles of growth belonging to the types of this species, from Rockford, 
Ind. They also enlarge upward somewhat more rapidly. The Ohio spe¬ 
cimen is extremely similar to these. 
Trematopora? yesiculosa, Win. (Proc. A. Hat. Sci., Phil., Jan., 
1863, p. 3). Several good specimens from Sciotoville, Ohio. 
118 See especially Proc. Amcr. Phil. Soc., No. SI, p. 57, and Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phil., July, 18(15^ 
p. 110. 
119 See further noticed of these rocks, Geology of Tenn., chap. XT, sec. I. 
120 Descriptions of these fossils are embraced in the late Report on Tennessee, in a paper em¬ 
bodying notices of sonie fossils from the “Carboniferous Limestone,” of that State. As Prof. Saf- 
ford has questioned the correctness of my identification of Spiri/era Logani , I embrace this oppor¬ 
tunity to state that I have reinvestigated the question and remain of the same persuasion as be¬ 
fore, though 1 admit there is room for differences of opinion. I have five specimens of S. imbrex, 
(to which Prof. Safford refers the specimens in question) from the typical locality, at Burlington, 
Iowa. The Tennessee specimens differ from these as follows: They are larger, heavier and coarser 
shells; the sinus is more deeply sunk, relatively broader, and more distinctly defined, and it is 
greatly produced in front, while that of& imbrex is scarcely at all produced; it embraces from 10 
to 12 costa?, while that of S. imbrex embraces only 6 or 8; the fold, instead of being obsolete, and 
a mere undefined swell, is raised into a prominent, crest-like, acute ridge, especially toward the 
front; the dorsal valve is flattened from the middle of the fold to the extremities; the area is not 
flat, and is striated in both directions; the costa?, besides being smaller, are less numerous, except 
in very old specimens; they are crpssed only by fine concentric striae, and remote irregular grooves. 
instead of coarse, regular, imbricating striae raised into nodes on the crests of the costa?, as is the 
case with the surface of S', imbrex, when well preserved. 
On the contrary, these specimens agree with S. Lognni, especially in the following distinctive 
characters; “Dorsal valve depressed toward the cardinal extremities, and broadly curving to the 
base; mesial fold very prominent, extremely elevated and subangular in front, not defined at the 
margins. Ventral valve very gibbous at the sides, marked by a broad, deep, undefined mesial Sinus 
which, in the middle of the shell, occupies fully one-third of the width, sloping abruptly to the 
cardinal extremities, and extremely produced and elevated in front, in a sub-triangular exten¬ 
sion;” the area is concave, vertically and longitudinally striate. 
The correct identification of these Tennessee specimens is important, as having a bearing on the 
question of the equivalencies of the “ Silicious Group,” of Safford. 
