Retnarfcs on the Genus .Irthrop/iycus, Hall. 85 



shales of Medina and Rochester, and in the equivalent sand- 

 stones and shales of Pennsylvania and \'irginia, and is more 

 generally known than any other species. It is absolutely 

 limited to this particular formation, serving to identify it in 

 every locality." 



There are various other references to the species in the 

 reports of the New York survey, but they need not be men- 

 tioned here. The generic name, Art/irophycus, was given by 

 Hall in 1852.* Under the specific name, harlani, there are 

 given as synonyms Fiicoides alleghaiiiensis, I'\ brong7iiartii 

 Harlan, and F. harlatii Conrad. In this same year, 1852, H. 

 R. Goeppertt established a genus under the name of Harlaiiia, 

 giving as the specific name, halli, and as synonyms Fucoides 

 harlani Conrad, and h\ brongniartii, and F. alleghaniensis 

 Harlan. 



The coincidence in date of publication of these two genera 

 has led to considerable diversity of opinion as to which one 

 should be used. Both volumes are dated 1852 on the title 

 page. In the introductory remarks to the Palaeontology of 

 New York, Prof. Hall says that the printing of the volume 

 was in progress in February, 1849, and about 120 pages were 

 printed before the work was stopped. " Except the last 

 fifteen pages," he says, "' the printing of this volume was com- 

 pleted in the early part of 1850; but the engraving had not 

 been finished to permit its appearance till 1852." As the 

 description of the genus appears on page four, and the fossil 

 is figured on Plate I, we seem justified in assuming the genus 

 was really in print before 1850, although the volume was not 

 published until 1852. That the volume was regarded as 

 printed in 1851 by Prof. Hall, is evidenced by the fact that 

 several references are made to it in part two of Foster and 

 Whitney's Report on the Lake Superior Land District, + the 

 d^ate of publication of which is December, 1851. On the 

 other hand, there is no reason for supposing that Goeppert's 

 paper appeared before 1852, or that any part of it was in print 



"Pal. of New York, vol. ii, 1852, p. 4. 



tFossile flora des Ubegangsgebirg-es. Novo. Acto. Acad. Caesar. Leopol.— 

 Carol., Siippl. vol. xxii, Breslau & Bonn, 1S52. 

 JSee pages 207, 219, 222, 223. 



