86 Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 



before that time. Roemer* states that Volume II of the 

 Palaeontology did not appear until 1853, and upon this ground 

 he gives Harlania the preference. He has been followed in 

 this by various authors, but, in our opinion, he is not justified 

 in so doing. We shall, therefore, consider Arthrophycus as 

 the proper generic designation. 



There is also a question as to the specific name. If priority 

 has aught to do vi'ith the matter, as it certainly should have, 

 Harlan's name, alleghanicnsis, is the proper designation. It 

 was proposed and defined seven years previous to Conrad's 

 substitution of the name harlayii, and twenty-one j'ears before 

 Goeppert's halli. The name given by Harlan was not pre- 

 occupied in the genus FKCoides, and it was well defined and 

 illustrated. There seems absolutely no reason for the change 

 made by Conrad. It appears proper, therefore, to the writer 

 that the fossil form in question should bear the name 

 Arthrophycus allegh.vxiensis (Harlan), Hall. 



'■'Roemer, Ferd. Lethaea palKozoica. Lief, i, Stuttgart, i.~So, p. 135. It is 

 rather to ungracious task to criticise, but attention should be called to several 

 serious errors in dates in this publication. For example, 1824 is given as the date for 

 DeKay's genus, Bilohites. It should be 1823. Riisophycus Hall, is given as 1825. It 

 should be 1852. Fucoides cauda-gaUi is given as Vanuxeni, 1842. The name was 

 used by Conrad in 1S38. Finally, under Harlania, we find in the synonomy 

 " Fucoides brongniartii Harlan, Phys. and Medic. Researches, 1827." It should be 

 Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1831. Fucoides alleghaniensis should be 1831 instead of 

 1838. Fucoides har/ani, given as 1843, should be, as above pointed out, 183S. With 

 all these errors, we need not be surprised if there was a mistake in the date given 

 for the publication of volume two of the Pakeontology of New York. 



