126 Cincinnati Society of Natural Histoiy. 



consider a synonym of M. papillata, Mr. Ulrich says tliat he 

 regards his new species as more nearly aUied to M. cinciiinaticnsis 

 than any other species, but that "the larger, more closely arranged, 

 and much more prominent monticules of that species, constitute a 

 point of difference so decided and readily apparent, that examples 

 of the two species may be distinguished at a glance."* In another 

 place after describing two forms, closely allied, he says: '"In its 

 typical form this species may be readily distinguished from the pre- 

 ceding by its tuberculated surface. The more nearly smooth ex- 

 amples can be distinguished by the thicker walls, stellate maculae, 

 and much more flattened branches of //. ciirvata' [the first one 

 described].! After describing Prasopora nodosa, which will be by 

 us considered a synonym of M. cincinnatiensis, James, he says: 

 "The strongly tuberculated surface, and the irregular growth of 

 this species will distinguish it from all other species of Prasopora 

 known to me."! 



Instances like the above can be multiplied almost indefinitely, 

 but these must suffice, and we refer all who wish to see other cases 

 to the volumes quoted. § But if now, there be such objection to 

 using the form and external features of the coralium for distinguish- 

 ing the species of Monticiilipora, upon what would these authors, 

 and others, place dependence? The answer to this question is 

 stated in a itw words. The internal structure of the species, as 

 revealed by thin sections examined under the microscope, is to tell 

 us the name of the specimen we have in hand. In other words, 

 surface features are to be largely, if not wholly disregarded, and if 

 we desire to identify any one specimen, positively, be it ever so 

 small, or ever so well marked externally, we are expected by reason 

 of these "modern methods," to cut into sections, polish, mount 

 and examine under a compound microscope each specimen we 

 have to handle. It is as if an anatomist were to laboriously make 



*Ain. Pal. Bryozoa, Tour. C. S. N. H. v., 239. 



r't'id, p. 244. Jlbid, p. 245. 



$lf these writers, and others, consider the external features to be of little or no 

 classiticatory value, the question might be aslied, why is it that in every case ot original 

 description of a species, the external form and markings are nearly always referred to 

 first, and minutely describi-d ? \\ of no value, why be at such pains to mention them ? 

 But further the question might be asked, what would be the value of the description of 

 highly magnified sections of the interior, if nothing were known of the exterior of 

 the species ? Mr. Ulrich asserts positively that he "for one will not recognize any of 

 the recent publications (preliminary publications of work done for delayed state surveys, 

 eic, alone excepted), in which ihe names proposed are not clearly defined, and the spe- 

 cific character of the fossils figured." (J. C. S. N. H. v. 247'. Yet Mr. Ulrich himself 

 has made descriptions and given figures which are impossible to recognize. In his 

 Am. Palaeozoic Bryozoa J. C. h. N. H. v, vi, viij. on fourteen plates he has 269 figures. 

 (5ut of these onlv 50 are of natural size and at all recognizable ; all the rest are magni- 

 fied sections of the interior or exterior, enlarged generally eighteen diameters, and 

 sometimes fifty. All of these highly magnified figures would be utterly worthless with- 

 out the description of the exterior. 



