NO. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 45 



MONTICULIPORA CLINTONENSIS James. 



MonticulijMra (Heierol n/pa) dintonensis James, PaleontologiHt, No. 6, 1882, p. 45, 



pi. I, tig. 9. 

 MoniicuUpora dintoneims James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 



1888, p. 20, pi. I, figs. 1, la.— 3. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati 8oc. Nat. Hist., 



XVIII, 1895, p. 7.3. 



The tj'pes of this form are missing, and unless they are found at 

 some later date it will be inipossible to determine its exact status. 

 However, the description of M. clhdonensls leads the writer to believe 

 that Mr. James had before him specimens of the species described hy 

 Ulrich in 1879 as Atactopora sahramosa^" now referred to the genus 

 Ileterotrypa. This belief is strengthened by the fact that a specimen 

 in the collection of the U. S. National Museum labelled by Mr. pJames 

 as M. Glinto7iensis is a typical example of Heterotrypa suhramosa. 



OcGurrence. — James's types were recorded from the upper part of 

 the Cincinnati rocks (Richmond) in Clinton Coimty, Ohio. Hetero- 

 trypa suhramosa is a common and characteristic fossil in the Richmond 

 group of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentuck3\ 



MONTICULIPORA HOSPITALIS NEGLECTA James and James. 



Monticiilipora hospUalis var. neglecta James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. 

 Hi.st., XI, 1888, p. 27, pi. i, fig. 3.— J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. 

 Hist., XVIII, 1896, J). 124. 



Neither the type nor any other specimen of this variety could be 

 found in the collection, and therefore unless the type turns up later the 

 status of the above name can not be determined. The authors in sep- 

 arating the variety from M. (now Prasopora) hospitalis say that 

 " variety 7?(?^/«'to differs mainly in possessing conspicuous monticules.'*' 

 If this is the only point of difference exhibited by the type specimen, 

 var. neglecta is a synonym for the species itself since in the genus Praso- 

 pora^ as in many other monticuliporoid genera, the monticules show 

 a considerable variation in the same species. It is thought probable 

 that the type specimen will show that it is not at all related to Praso- 

 pora hospitalh^ but until the figured specimen is found the name 

 might as well be dropped. Judging from James and James's figure, 

 it seems not unlikely that the original may belong to Monticulipora 

 consimUls described by Ulrich in 1882. 



MONTICULIPORA PAPILLATA James and James. 



MoniicuUpora papillata James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 

 1888, p. 23.— J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1895, 

 p. 81 ( not NebuUpora papillata McCoy ) . 



The specimens from the Cincinnati rocks, supposed by James and 

 James to be identical with the English species JVehulijyora papillata 



«Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., II, 1879, p. 124, pi. xii, tigs. 6-6c. 



