30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE XATIOXAL MUSEUM. vol. xxx. 



C. ohioensis, a closel}' related species, ma}' be separated by its uni- 

 formlj^ more imbricating and radially arranged triangular-shaped zoce- 

 cial apertures and conspicuous, over-arching lunaria. 



Occxirvence. — James's type came from the Corr3'ville member at 

 Cincinnati. The species is not uncommon and ranges from this bed 

 to and through the various divisions of the Richmond group. 



CHAETETES CRUSTULATUS James. 



Chaietes crustulatus J ames, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 1; No. 8, 1879, p. 20. 

 Monticulipora crustulata J AyiES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 



1888, p. 23, pi. I, figs. 2, 2a. 

 MoiUiciiIiporu criistulata J. F. James, Jour. C'incinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 



1895, p. 82. 



The original description of this foi-m is so general that it is impossi- 

 ble to determine which particular one of the four or five species found 

 in the Cincinnatian series incrusting Orthocerata was intended bv its 

 author. Indeed it is probable that he had no particular one in mind 

 as the synon3'm3' given later by James and James indicates. 



The specimens upon which Mr. James founded his original diagnosis 

 jire not distinguished in the collection. The type specimen selected 

 and figured in 18S8 as Mont'iculipom crustulata is probabl}" an example 

 of SiHitlaponi maculosa Ulrich which had been accuratel}' defined and 

 figured by that author in 1883.'' This identification, however, is based 

 only on the general view of the zoarium,* the figure of the surface 

 enlarged (fig. "la) being almost certainly incorrect since the thickness 

 of wall shown is not attained by any Cincinnatian bryozoan known to 

 me. This figured specimen is missing, but another example now 

 marked as the type is Sjxitiopora 'tnaculosa Ulrich. 



The name Cliaetetes crustulatui^^ therefore, must be dropped since 

 it was not defined exactly enough for recognition. Monticulijjora 

 crii.stHlata although figured, can not be determined with certainty 

 because of the poor illustrations and the absence of the type specimen. 



CHAETETES LYCOPERDON James (not Hall). 



C/iaeteto /yco^xTfZon James Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 11. 

 Chaetetes lycopodites James Paleontologist, No. 3, 1879, p. 20. 



The specific names lycopenlon and I yeojxxHtes were employed by 

 James for some massive Cincinnatian bryozoan but which one can not 

 be decided from his descriptions. His collection also now contains no 

 specimen labelled with either of these names. It matters little, how- 

 ever, since so many species have been dcscril)ed h\ authors under the 

 designation Chaetetes lycoperdon that the name, never having been 

 restricted to any particular one, now has no standing. 



a Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VI, 1883, p. 167, pi. vii, fig. 6. 

 '^ James and James, 1888, pi. i, fig. 2. 



I 



