Cincinnatian and Lexington Fossils 8i 



I am unable to see why the fact that Eaton incorrectly re- 

 ferred a glabellar fragment of Honiolanotiis dekayi to Nuttainia 

 should invalidate his genus. The validity of his genus must rest 

 solely upon the value of the generic distinctions proposed, the spe- 

 cies selected as type, and the relative date of the publication of 

 the genus. 



Hall's testimony that Xuffainia was established before Cryp- 

 tolitlins (Nezu York Paleontology, vol. i, p. 235) is invalidated 

 by the fact that he lists only Green's Monograph, not his Synopsis 

 in the American Journal of Geology and Natural History, even 15 

 years after the publication of the latter, although both copies of 

 the Journal in the Walker Museum library are from the original 

 Hall library. Moreover, in 1842. in the Report of the Second Dis- 

 trict by the New York Geological Survey, p. 390, Prof. Ebenezer 

 Emmons uses the term Trinuch^us tesselatus, Green, rather than 

 Trill uch'us concentricus, Eaton. 



I suspect that Green's claim of priority for Cryptolithus tes- 

 selatus is correct, although at this late date positive proof appears 

 to be lacking. But one thing at least is certain, if the term Cryp- 

 tolithiis has priority, then the specific term tesselatus also has pri- 

 ority. The combination Cryptolithus concentricus is inadmissable. 



Regarding the term Triiiiicleits, which has become so firmly 

 established, it can scarcely be said to have been adequately described 

 by Lhwyd, in 1698. It was Sir R. I. Murchison who first gave this 

 term a generic significance, in his work on the Silurian System, in 

 1839, seven years after the publication of the generic terms pro- 

 posed by Green and Eaton. The ready acceptance of this term 

 by American authors could have been due only to the great prestige 

 of Murchison and a complete ignorance of Lhwyd's article. Cer- 

 tainly, it was an injustice to the American authors, to retain the 

 terni Trinucleus, after its extremely inadequate description be- 

 came known. 



Calymene platycephala, sp. no v. 



/Plate II. tig. /.) 



In the Saltillo limestone, at Clifton, Tennessee, there is found 

 a species of Calymene with a flattened cephalon. The middle part 

 of the cephalon here figured belongs to the Hall collections in the 

 American Museum of Natural History, in New York City, and is 

 numbered 1409. The anterior part of the glabella and that part 



