NORTH AMERICAN GRAPTOLITES 79 
cation of the “serrations” is probably due toa slightly oblique pressure causing 
the lower latero-ventral margin of the polypary to extend beyond the upper 
latero-ventral margin of the same, in such a manner that the corners of the 
thecal mouths alternate. I have seen this condition in G. cz/zatus and sev- 
eral other graptolite species. 
LOMATOCERAS BRONN, 1834. 
Lomatoceras, Lethzea Geognostica, I., pp. 55-56; MWonofrion Barrande, 1850, 
Grapt. de Bohéme, p. 14; JZonograpsus Geinitz, 1852, Die Graptolithen, 
p. 32; Monograptus of later writers; Lagenograptus Hall, 1870, 20th Rep. 
N. Y. St. Cab. Nat. Hist., 2 ed., p. 261. Type Z. Jriodon Bronn. 
There can be no question as to the clear priority of this name, though it 
has been asserted, reasserted and taken for granted that it was preoccupied." 
I find no evidence of such preoccupation, at least I have searched with the aid 
of several entomological friends for the name as a genus of insects without 
success. Bronn says that his genus is “non Lomatocera, insectorum genus.” 
This is not preoccupation and there is no reason why both names should not 
stand. Finally if for any reason Lomatoceras cannot stand, Monograpsus 
must still give place to Barrande’s MJonofrion, as Geinitz’s alteration of the 
last to MWonograpsus (to harmonize with his substitution of Dzplograpsus for 
Diprion) preoccupied, cannot be accepted. 
GLADIOLITE BARRANDE, 1850. 
Grapt. de Bohéme, p. 68. Syn. Refiolites, zbid., p. 68, footnote. Type G. 
geinitzianus. 
Barrande proposed G/adiolites as the name of the genus; merely adding 
that Refzolites could be used if (r/adio/ites were considered too near Gladiolus. 
By no rule of nomenclature can Aeézo/ztes have any standing (except as an 
unnecessary synonym). Accepted usage must therefore be rejected and 
Gladiolites restored. 
Gladiolites venosus (Hall). 
EaloNe Venlo52; Ue pa40, blate x Villa, Migs. 22-4: 
The figure of this species given by Spencer* and copied from him by 
Miller,3 bear no very evident resemblance to Hall’s species. Moreover, after 
a careful examination of a fine specimen (unquestionally co-specific with 
Spencer’s species) from the Niagara beds at Hamilton, Ontario (whence 
Spencer’s species came), has convinced me that the reference of it to G. 
venosus (Hall), is incorrect. Whatever else it may be it is not Hall’s form, 
Beck in Murchison’s Silurian System, 1839, Part II., p. 696; Bronn, 1849, 
Geschichte der Natur, p. 667; Geinitz, 1852, Die Graptolithen, p. 18. 
2Bull. Mus. Univ. State Mo., 1884, I., p. 16, Plate I., Fig. 2. 
3 North Amer. Geol. & Pal., p. 202, Fig. 214. 
