NO 144.2. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 31 



■\ 



CHAETETES PETROPOLITANUS James (not Pander). 



Chaett'tes petropolitanns James, Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 11. 



The Cincinnatian form referred to as above b}" James is most cer- 

 tainly not the same as the European Ordovician species described by 

 Pander. Which particular one of the massive or hemispheric forms 

 tJames had in mind can not be determined. Possibly Arapled-opora 

 petaslforiiiis (Nicholson) was the form intended, but the matter is of 

 no consequence since the James identitication of C metropolitan us is 

 unmistakably incorrect. 



CHAETETES SUBROTUNDUS James. 



[ Chaetefex siihrotiDida-s .lAsiEii, Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 11. 

 Astylospongia subwtuudnx James, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 34. 

 Min'ospongia ? s^uhrotundus J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XIV, 

 1S91, p. 55, fig. 1. 



The name under which this form was tirst described would lead one 

 to believe it to be a br3^ozoan. Subsequently, as shown above, the 

 form was regarded as a species of Astylospongla and later as Miero- 

 xpoiKj'ia. There is little doulit that the specimens belong to one of the 

 numerous forms or variations of Hlndla sphaeroidalU Duncan. The 

 type specimens of C. suhrotundus were found at Ogden Station, Clin- 

 ton County, Ohio. 



CHAETETES TURBINATUM James. 



Chaetetes turbinatum James, Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, i>. 11. 



Mo^dicuUporn turhinata James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 



1888, p. 161, pi. II, figs. 1 a-c. — J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., 



XV, 1893, p. 158. 

 Not Monotriipa turhinata Nickles and Bassler, Bull. U. S. (leol. Surv., No. 173, 



1900, p. 316 {=Monotriipa suhglohosa Ulrich). 



The name Chaetetes turbinatum was proposed tentativel}^ in 1878 for 

 specimens differing from Chaetetes petropolitanus in being turbinate 

 in form and in having the basal attachment small. C. turhinatuni was 

 stated to range from the lowest to the highest exposed beds at Cincin- 

 nati and vicinity. Now just which one of the six or more massive 

 bryozoa occurring in this range of strata at Cincinnati was considered 

 as Chaetetes petropol'itanus can never be accurately determined from 

 the literature, and none of the specimens in the James's collection is 

 labelled so as to indicate w^hich form that author had in mind. This 

 tirst reference to Chaetetes turhhiatuiii is therefore of no value, the 

 name being little more than a nomen nudum. 



In 1879 Ulrich described Chaetetes siibglohosus,^ which James and 

 James recognized as a synonym of their C. turhlnatum in 1888,* when 



ff Jour. Cincinnati Nat. Hist., II, 1879, p. 129, pi. xi, figs. 11-llb. 

 &Idem., X, 1888, p. 161. 



