NO- 1^42. JAMES TYPES OF BJiYOZOA-BASSLER. 27 



synonymous in part with both ^, _;V/«/<?.s'/ and. j^. ImjjUcatuvi. How- 

 ever, the original and only diagnosis is so vague that for that reason 

 alone the name ought to l)e dropped. 



CERAMOPORA NICHOLSONI James. 



Ceramopora nlclio/xoni James, Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1875, p. 3. 

 MonticuUpora ( Fiatulipora) nichohon't James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Sor. 



Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 34, pi. i, tijis. 6-6c.— J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati 



Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1896, p. 121, fig. 12. 

 Not Ch'dopnreUa nicholsoiii Nickles and Bassler, Bull. U. S. Geol. Sin-vey, No. 



173, 1900, p. 207 {=ChiloporeUaJiabellala Ulrich). 



This species was first described by James as " incrusting- foreign 

 substances." The type species, however, is not an incrusting form 

 but is a solid flabollate expansion, and that this specimen is the one 

 used by James for his description is attested b}' the label in his hand- 

 writing accompanying it. The name C. nicholsoiii therefore, being- 

 founded on characters which do not belong to the specimen, following 

 the laws of nomenclature, must be abandoned. 



eJames's type is an example of Fistulipora flahellafa described by 

 Ulrich in 1879. In 1879 James also described the two species, F. mult!- 

 pora and F. silurlan/f, but in the James and James revision of the 

 Monticuliporidm in 1888, these two names, together with Ulrich's 

 F. jJaheUata and also Callopora cincmnatlensis of the same author 

 were made synon3ans of C. nicholsoiii. The respective types of 

 F. iiiultipora and F. siluriana., as noted under these headings in this 

 paper, contain a number of different species, while Ulrich's Callopora 

 cincimiatiensis^ the third supposed synonym which was erroneousl}^ 

 described by its author as coming from Cincinnati, happens to be the 

 same as Lioclema occidens (Hall and Whitfield) from the Upper 

 Devonian of Iowa.** 



Nickles and Bassler, believing that with the exception of C. cincin- 

 7iatiensis, the synonym}^ given by James for C. nicholsoni wn^i correct., 

 recognized his species as Chiloporella nicholsoiii., and placed Ulrich's 

 well-detined Chiloporella {Fistulipora) -fiabellata as a synonym. Had 

 they seen the types they certainly would not have fallen into this error, 

 nor would such stress have been put upon '""authentic" specimens had 

 the}' known of the number of distinct forms often included among 

 the specimens marked as the original types of one and the same 

 species. 



To sura up, the writer would now regard Ceramojxira nicholsoni aw^ 

 its so-called synonyms as follows: (1) Cerarnopwra nieholsoni itself 

 must be abandoned, since the species is founded upon characters not 

 shown by the type. (2) Fistulijpora flaheUata Ulrich is recognized as 

 a good species and as the type of the genus Chiloporella. (3) Both 



«Geol. Surv. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 427. 



