306 Hotiick: A NEW FOSSIL FUCOID 
Another contribution dealing with the same subject is by David 
White,* in which two fine specimens, more or less closely resem- 
bling ours in general aspect, are described and figured under the 
new generic and specific name Thamnocladus Clarkei, and he re- 
marks (p. 598) that ‘“‘the fossils of the species here described as 
Thamnocladus clarkei have generally been recorded in American 
literature under the name Haliserites dechenianus Gopp.” He 
regards such specific identification as doubtful, however, and con- 
tends, with excellent reason, that in any event none of the speci- 
mens of this species, European or American, should be referred to 
the genus Haliserites as originally described and figured by Stern- 
berg,t and then proposes (p. 603) the generic name Taentocrada to 
include the American forms referred by Penhallow to Haliserites 
and also certain similar European species of the genus (H. distans 
Eichw. and H. lusaticus Gein.), but is doubtful about including 
the specimens figured by Géppert as H. Dechenianus. The type 
species of the genus Taeniocrada is stated to be T. Lesquereuxit 
David White MSS. (no. 25164, Lacoe collection, U. S. Nat. Mus. 
Catskill beds, Factoryville, Pa.), represented by Penhallow’s f. 6 
pl. ro (loc. cit.), under the name Haliserites Dechenianus Gopp. 
Apparently it was White’s intention to maintain the two genera, 
Thamnocladus and Taeniocrada, as distinct, but if so his intention 
is not very clearly expressed and is liable to be misinterpreted. 
It may also be pertinent to remark that it is entirely a matter of 
personal opinion whether or not they should be so regarded, and, 
from a careful consideration of all the available evidence, I am 
inclined to the opinion that the facts do not warrant their separa- 
tion. 
If, therefore, we regard all of Penhallow’s specimens as repre- 
senting a single species, and accept White’s view that this species 
is probably not Haliserites Dechenianus Gépp., and his conclusion 
that, in any event, it can not belong in the genus Haliserites 
Sternb., the questions to be decided are, first, whether or not our 
specimen is identical with any species heretofore described, and 
*Description of a fossil alga from the Chemung of New York, with remarks on 
the genus Haliserites Sternberg. Rep. N. Y. State Paleontologist 1901: 593- 
610. pl. 3, 
TF. en Ka 34. pl. 24. f. 7. 1833: 
