BRYOZOA. 947 
Prasopora., | 
found in vol. i, Pal. N. Y., 1847, in which Hall devotes nearly two plates to the 
illustration of its supposed variability. I might point out some of the now only too 
evident incongruities in the assemblage of forms so placed by that even then experi- 
enced observer, but it would be more than useless, since, if such a name has any 
claim whatever to stand, we must go back to Vanuxem’s lycopodites, because it has 
priority not only of publication but also in the matter of illustration. 
Professor H. A. Nicholson has given his views on the value of these equivalent 
names in his work on “The Genus Monticulipora,” p. 8, 1881, and as my own conclu- 
sions on the points at issue agree thoroughly with his I cannot do better than quote 
his excellent statement of the facts: “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 paleontologists than Chitetes lycoperdon Say, or 
Cheetetes 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, though 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 
preserving 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 Chitetes lycopod- 
ites 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. /ycoperdon Say) has been applied by 
different writers to wholly different forms.’”* “Nor, in the case of a genus like Mon- 
ticulipora, 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 various other 
similar titles, that it would bea real gain to science if there could be a general 
agreement that designations of this kind—published, in the first place, with wholly 
insufficient definitions, and subsequently employed by others in widely different 
senses—should be dropped altogether, and that no attempt should be made to 
revive them.” 
To show the inadequacy of Vanuxem’s figure, which shows absolutely nothing 
beyond the tubular structure of a hemispheric bryozoan mass, I have drawn the 
accompanying illustrations of the internal structure of four hemispheric species, 
all of them from the Trenton and supplementing those figured on plates XVI and 
XVII. 
*T should like to add here that it would not be difficult to show that since 1842 no less than one hundred distin- 
guishable froms have been included under this indefinite general designation. HB, O. U, 
