[899] Lambe — Stromatoporoid Formation. 



171 



the fossils belong to the g-enus Labechia, incrusting, in the first in- 

 stance, and massive in the second. 



Dr. Nicholson's description of Labechia ohioensis is based 

 upon specimens obtained by him at Waynesville, Ohio, and the 

 Cape Smyth specimens of Stenopora Huroncnsis, Bill., collected 

 by Dr. R. Bell* in 1859. Dr. Nicholson states that in the Cape 

 Smyth specimens the structure is much better preserved than in 

 those from Ohio. He also mentions (p. 14, Ann. and Mag-. Nat. 

 Hist.) that Mr. Foord had drawn his attention to the fact that 

 " some of the appearances which he describes as characterizing 

 Tetraduim huronense, Bill., sp. are really due to the fact that the 

 specimens of this coral which he examined were covered with a 

 crust o^ Labechia ohioensis.'''' 



The same specimens are thus seen to have been used for the 

 description of Stenopora Hitronensis, Bill., Teti adiiiin Huronense^ 

 Foord, and Labechia ohioensis, Nich., with, in the case of oiiioensis 

 the addition of the Waynesville specimens, so that these names 

 are synonymous. 



The writer is of the opinion with Dr. Nicholson, that Professor 

 Ulrich's L. montifera (op. cit.) is specifically the same as L. ohio- 

 ensis 'udging from the figure preceding the description of the for- 

 mer and from the two figures of its structure which are stated to 

 have been made from microscopical drawings of a specimen from 

 Wayne.sville, Ohio. 



It would seem therefore that Nicholson's and Ulrich's species 

 are identical with Billings's species. As the fossils described by 

 Billings are not referable to the genus Stenopora, Lonsdale, but to 

 Labechia, Milne-Edwards and Haime, they should be known by the 

 name Labechia Huronensis, Bill. 



* In Dr. Nicholson's description of Z. o/iioe»sis, (Ann. and Mag-. Nat. 

 Hist. p. 145.) Mr. A. H. Foord is incorrectly stated to have been the collector 

 of the Cape Smyth specimens. 



