NO. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 21 



Muntkuliporn f/rarU!s James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 



1888, p. 17r>. 

 Monticulipovd gracilis J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, 



p. 191. 

 Batodomella gracilis ITlrich, (Teol. Surv. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 482, pi. xxxv, 



fig. 2. 

 Bytliopora gracilis Nickles and Bassler, Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., No. 173, 1900, 



p. 185. 



This species among" others was merely named by James but described 

 and accredited to him by Nicholson, As in this and other similar 

 cases, the James name is a noinen nudum.^ so that the real author of 

 the species is Nicholson. The species has been well described and 

 tigured by Nicholson and Ulrich, and the student is referred to the 

 works above cited for their detailed descriptions. 



Occur7'ence. — Abundant in the Fairview and McMillan formations 

 throughout the Ohio Basin. The species is especially abundant in the 

 Corryville member, many slabs from this division being covered with 

 their white, smooth, narrow branches. 



BYTHOPORA MEEKI (James). 



Chaetetes mee.ki James, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 1. 

 Monticuliporn {Chaetetes) meeki J awes, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 35. 

 Monticalipora gracilis var. meeki Nicholson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 127. 

 Monticulipora meeki James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, 



p. 174.— J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 192. 

 Bytliopora meeki Nickles and Bassler, Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., No. 173, 1900, 



p. 186. 



The type lot of Chaetetes meeki James contains, besides the well- 

 known form regarded by Nicholson as a variety of Monticulipora gra- 

 cilis^ specimens of Rh(>mhotryj>a quadrata (Rominger), Homotrypa 

 communis Bassler, an undetermined species, and a ramose example of 

 Homotrypa fiahellaris Ulrich. All of these species agree in but one 

 feature, the general form of the zoarium, and also show how little 

 value can be attached to this character alone. Strangely enough with 

 such a mixture, James's descriptions are correct since he recognizes 

 the relationship of his species with Chaetetes (now Bythopora) gracilis 

 and gives good comparisons between the two forms. Evidently he 

 based his remarks upon a few of his "types" and these happened to 

 be of the species now recognized as Bythopora rneehi. 



The various species of Bytliopora are so much alike in internal 

 structure that it is not strange that Nicholson considered the species 

 imder discussion onl}' a variety of his Monticulipora gracilis. How- 

 ever, the fact that it occupies and is characteristic of a different geo- 

 logical horizon, and always forms a considerably larger zoarium, seems 

 to me reason enough for its rank as a distinct species. Bythopora 

 gracilis forms long slender stems seldom over 3 mm. in diameter and 

 characterizes the Fairview, and McMillan formations, while the 



