[Q] “Canadian Naturalist,” vol. vii.
I subsequently applied the same explanation to several other ancient forms now known under the general name Bilobites (Figs. [6] and [7]).[R]
[R] The name Bilobites was originally proposed by De Kay for a bivalve shell (Conocardium). Its application to supposed Algæ was an error, but this is of the less consequence, as these are not true plants but only animal trails.
Fig. 7.—Rusophycus (Rusichnites) Grenvillensis, an animal burrow of the Siluro-Cambrian, probably of a crustacean, a, Track connected with it.
The tuberculated impressions known as Phymatoderma and Caulerpites may, as Zeiller has shown, be made by the burrowing of the mole-cricket, and fine examples occurring in the Clinton formation of Canada are probably the work of Crustacea. It is probable, however, that some of the later forms referred to these genera are really Algæ related to Caulerpa, or even branches of Conifers of the genus Brachyphyllum.
Nereites and Planulites are tracks and burrows of worms, with or without marks of setæ, and some of the markings referred to Palæochorda, Palæophycus, and Scolithus have their places here. Many examples highly illustrative of the manner of formation of the impressions are afforded by Canadian rocks ([Fig. 8]).
Branching forms referred to Licrophycus of Billings, and some of those referred to Buthotrephis, Hall, as well as radiating markings referable to Scotolithus, Gyrophyllites, and Asterophycus, are explained by the branching burrows of worms illustrated by Nathorst and the author. Astropolithon, a singular radiating marking of the Canadian Cambrian,[S] seems to be something organic, but of what nature is uncertain ([Fig. 9]).