26 PROCEEDINGS^ OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. xxx. 



(3) One specimen of the basal expansion of Chiloporella flahellata 

 (Ulricli) from the Corryville member at Cincinnati. 



(4) Several specimens of the basal expansion of Coeloclema commune 

 (Ulrich) and fragments of the branches of the same species, all of these 

 being from the lower part of the Eden shale, and probably from tht» 

 bank of the Ohio River at Ludlow, Kentucky. 



The specimen selected for illustration by James and James, "and which 

 should be adopted as the real type of the species, is a robust, frequently 

 branching specimen of CaUopora oneaUi-sigillarioides (Nicholson) over- 

 grown by a finely preserved example of CeramoporeUa oh'wensh (Nich- 

 olson).'^ This specimen w^as found in the upper beds of the Eden shale, 

 near Eden Park reservoir, Cincinnati. Ceramopora co7icentrica James 

 and James, therefore, as based on the figured type, is a svnonjmi for 

 CeramopxweUa ohiot'usw (Nicholson). Without the specimen it would 

 l^e impossible to make this determination, since the figure is wholly 

 without distinctive characters. As stated, the original description is 

 too indefinite, and, as the type lot shows, based upon too many dis- 

 tinct species for recognition. 



Nickl.'s and the writer in their Synopsis of American Fossil Bryozoa 

 referred James's i'trninopora conceiitnca to the genus Coehx-hiiuA, mak- 

 ing l^lrich's Dkoiie-sopora coiniiiunis a S3"non3Mn. How erroneous our 

 ideas of the species were is shown by the above remarks, our concep- 

 tion of the species being based upon a "typical'" specimen received 

 by Mr. Nickles some 3'^ears ago from Mr. James, and which happened 

 to be the same as Ulrich's Dlaincsopora (now CodocJema) communis. 

 Hence Coeloclemo concentricum of Nickles and Bassler is a synonym of 

 Coeloclema commune (Ulrich). 



CERAMOPORA ? IRREGULARIS James. 



Ceramopora f irreguldvis . J \ME>i, Paleontologist, No. I, 187H, p. 5. 



This species was described as incrusting foreign substances and 

 having cells similar to those of Chaetetes jamesl Nicholson. The simi- 

 larity to the species mentioned is borne out by the type specimens, 

 inasmuch as three of the t3^pe lot are typical ramose examples of C. 

 (now Batofttoina) jamesl and four are incrusting form$ of the same 

 species, while the remaining specimen represents the parasitic base of 

 BatoHtoma Implicatum. 



The variation in the shape of the zo(jecia which suggested the 

 specific name is due either to growth over an uneven surface or to 

 indentations of the zotecial walls caused by the development of numer- 

 ous acanthopores. Instead of being a synonym of B. implicatum, as 

 stated b}^ Nickles and Bassler, the name should have been placed as 



« Jour. Cincinnati See. Nat. Hi.st., XI, 1888, pi. i, figs. 8, 8a. 



f> Ceramopora ohioensis Nicholson, Pal. Ohio, IT, 1875, p. 265, pi. xxv, figs. lOo, 

 h, e (not 10 V, d). 



