SECONDARY AND TERTIARY FORMATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA. 179 



Doubtful Species. 



We have a specimen, presenting all the important surface characters of Multicrescis 

 parvicella, but it is tubulate throughout, and we are not certain but that it has an 

 epithelial layer internally. It is from near Mullica Hill, N. J., and is too small and 

 imperfect for satisfactory study. Better specimens may prove it to be an undescribed 

 species of Semicrescis. 



Fig. 71. — Illustrates a minute encrusting form, not uncommon in the Cretaceous 

 limestone of N. J. Some of the specimens resemble in their alternate dilations and 

 constrictions, a Hippothoa. They are very irregular and sometimes are hardly or 

 not at all constricted, representing an irregular flattered tube. No openings were ob- 

 served. 



On page 82 of his Synopsis of the Cretaceous formation, Dr. Morton indicates the 

 existence of a " Lunulite " in the Cretaceous strata of N. J. We have not yet en- 

 countered it 



" Alveolites glomeratus," Say. 



This well known Polyzoon, belonging to an undescribed genus of the Flustrcllar idee, 

 for which we propose the name Pumiscaria, is very common on the sea coast of New 

 Jersey. We have seen a specimen, purporting to come from the Miocene of that 

 State. This is, however, doubtful. The genus is characterized as follows : — 



Cellules like those of Membranipora. Colony encrusting in many superposed layers, 

 often forming enormous masses. 



The species, on which the genus is founded, is one of the commonest on our coast, 

 and sometimes forms masses five or six inches in diameter, around bunches of serpula 

 or on shells. We have seen a mass, formed around a valve of Osirea Virginica, which, 

 on being sawed through its smallest diameter, showed perhaps a hundred layers. 



[Note. — Since the writing of this Monograph, my coadjutor, Mr. W. M. Gabb, has been called to the post 

 of Paleontologist, to the State of California. In regard to the Santa Barbara and San Pedro deposits, he 

 writes, " they are among the most recent deposits, almost all the species being still extant." " Instead of 

 Post-Miocene they should be called Post-Pliocene." The correction having arrived too late to make the al- 

 teration in the whole text, the error has been allowed to remain in the later pages, and this method taken 

 of making it known. — G. II. H.] 



I- 



