BRYOZOA. 247 



Prasopora.l 



found in vol. i, Pal. N. Y., 1847, in which Hall devotes nearly two plates to the 

 illustration of its supposed variability. I might point out some of the now only too 

 evident incongruities in the assemblage of forms so placed by that even then experi- 

 enced observer, but it would be more than useless, since, if such a name has any 

 claim whatever to stand, we must go back to Vanuxem's lycopodites, because it has 

 priority not only of publication but also in the matter of illustration. 



Professor H. A. Nicholson has given his views on the value of these equivalent 

 names in his work on "The Genus Monticulipora," p. 8, 1881, and as my own conclu- 

 sions on the points at issue agree thoroughly with his I cannot do better than quote 

 his excellent statement of the facts : "My object in mentioning this in this place is 

 twofold. On the one hand, there are few corals which have been more commonly 

 quoted by American geologists and paleontologists than Chcetetes lycoperdon Say, or 

 Ohcetetes lycopodites Vanuxem ; and it would therefore be very desirable to establish, 

 if possible, the precise nature and characters of the form to be understood by this 

 name, though I am not aware that this has ever been satisfactorily accomplished. 

 On the other hand, I wish to record the opinion that the generally laudable desire of 

 preserving an old name, where this is possible, may sometimes be carried too far, 

 and that this is, in my view, an instance in point. No definition of Chcetetes lycopod- 

 ites Vanuxem, which can be regarded as in any sense a definition, was given by its 

 original author, or has since been supplied by any subsequent observer, while it is 

 certain that this name (or the equivalent C. lycoperdon Say) has been applied by 

 different writers to wholly different forms."* "Nor, in the case of a genus like Mon- 

 ticulipora, where external form goes for so little, can Vanuxem's original figure, 

 however good, be regarded as satisfactory proof as to the species upon which he 

 really founded the name in question. Under these circumstances, therefore, I 

 think as I think about such names as Favosites fibrosa Goldf., and various other 

 similar titles, that it would be a real gain to science if there could be a general 

 agreement that designations of this kind published, in the first place, with wholly 

 insufficient definitions, and subsequently employed by others in widely different 

 senses should be dropped altogether, and that no attempt should be made to 

 revive them." 



To show the inadequacy of Vanuxem's figure, which shows absolutely nothing 

 beyond the tubular structure of a hemispheric bryozoan mass, I have drawn the 

 accompanying illustrations of the internal structure of four hemispheric species, 

 all of them from the Trenton and supplementing those figured on plates XVI and 

 XVII. 



*I should like to add here that it would not be difficult to show that since 1842 no less than one hundred distin- 

 guishable Troias have been included under this indefinite general designation. E. O. U, 



