PROBLEM OF THE MONTICULIPOROIDEA 3 



between Coelenterata and Bryozoa. Of other chief works, 

 especially those of Nicholson, 1 we may trust E. 0. Ulrich to have 

 criticised them fully. They are conservative and excellent, but 

 inadequate for the study of American fossils without the mag- 

 nificent recent monographs by E. O. Ulrich 2 to supplement 

 them. The last named, together with the chapter on Bryozoa 

 in Eastman's Paleontology , would have offered a complete solu- 

 tion to the student for the study of the fossils and the involved 

 problem of their affinities, if it were not for much obscurity in 

 his definitions. One is compelled to criticise and to interpret 

 anew from the fossils when endeavoring to follow him. In this 

 connection it should be said also that the severe criticism of E. 

 O. Ulrich, by S. A. Miller, op. cit., while touching his works on 

 Paleozoic Bryozoa, does not appear to reach by censorship of 

 the species this group as much or as well as other ones, for the 

 reason, evidently, that his knowledge of them did not permit 

 him. Therefore, while all species are listed as equally valid, 

 some will be found, nevertheless, to have been made upon wholly 

 insufficient evidence and require to be freely eliminated. The most 

 species will again be far easier to identify than their descriptions 

 would lead one to expect. It appears, in short, necessary to 

 admit the value of some earlier criticism 3 of this author, and to 

 expect to find similarities and differences described with acute- 

 ness, while fanciful values are frequently attached to them. 



Regarding the handling of fossil Monticuliporoidea, one 

 should collect all specimens and in the laboratory select the 

 better preserved ones to begin with. These may be assorted 

 and identified by means of external characters. A common 

 hand lens will suffice to reveal whatever may be not clear to 

 the naked eye. To be sure, the exhaustive study of the material 

 requires the making and use of thin sections when practicable, 

 for often only by that means can the also important internal 



1 H. A. Nicholson, On the Structure and Affinities of the Genus Monticulipora 

 1881. 



2 Geol.Surv. 111., Rept., Vol. VIIT, and Geol. Surv., Minn., Final Rept., Vol. III. 

 3 Rominger, Amer. Geol., Vol. VI, pp. 103 and 120, 1890. 



