8 THE GENUS MONTICULIPORA. 



ticulipora under the name of Chcstetes lycoperdon, from the 

 Niagara group of North America. The same so- 

 1 8s I con- (,^iig(;j species had been previously (1847) described and 

 figured, along with others, in the first volume of this 

 work (p. 64, PI. XXIII., figs, i-i ?; 2, 2a, 3, and PI. XXIV., 

 figs. \ a-\ 0), where it is stated to be founded upon the Fa- 

 vosites lycoperdon of Say, though it would seem that Say did 

 not really publish this name, and that it was first actually made 

 public by Vanuxem (Geol. 3d Dist. N. Y., p. 46, 1842) under 

 the name of Favosites lycopodites (see Note by Professor C. A. 

 White in 'The Palaeontologist,' No. 3, p. 20, 1879). My object 

 in mentioning this in this place is twofold. On the one hand, 

 there are few corals which have been more commonly quoted 

 by American geologists and palaeontologists than Chcetetes 

 lycoperdon, Say, or ChcBtetes lycopodites, Vanuxem ; and it 

 would therefore be very desirable to establish, if possible, the 

 precise nature and characters of the form to be understood by 

 this name, thouoh I am not aware that this has ever been 

 satisfactorily accomplished. On the other hand, I wish to 

 record the opinion that the generally laudable desire of pre- 

 serving an old name, where this is possible, may sometimes be 

 carried too far, and that this is, in my view, an instance in 

 point. No definition of Chcstetes lycopodites, Vanuxem, which 

 can be regarded as in any sense a definition, was given by its 

 original author, or has since been supplied by any subsequent 

 observer, while it is certain that this name (or the equivalent, 

 C lycoperdon, Say) has been applied by different writers to 

 wholly different forms. A reference to Professor Hall's plates 

 {loc. cit.), for example, will at once show that even this accurate 

 and accomplished observer included more than one specific form 

 under this title. Nor, in the case of a genus like Monticuli- 

 pora, where external form goes for so little, can Vanuxem's 

 original figure, however good, be regarded as satisfactory 

 proof as to the species upon which he really founded the name 

 in question. Under these circumstances, therefore, I think, as 

 I think about such names as Favosites fibrosa, Goldf , and vari- 



