No. 186.J 67 



Original Names. Changed Names, Remarks, etc. 



Vol.1, page 



Calymene multicOSta 228 The generic relations not fully determined 



" senaria 238 



Cameroceras 221 



Cameroceras trentonense 221 



CapuluS auriformis 31 This specimen is not a Capulus ; and al- 



though admitted among the Chazy collections on the authority of the collec- 

 tor, it may be doubtful whether it does not come from a higher rock, and is 

 more nearly related to Platyostoma. 



Cardiomorpha VetUSta 157 The generic relations are not satisfactorily 



■•■ determined. 



CaRINAROPSIS . 183 Notwithstanding the objections made to 



the admission of this genus, I am not prepared to place the species under 



any other designation at the present time. 



Carinaropsis carinatus 183 



" orbiculatus 306 



" patelliformis, 183, 306 



Ceraurus* pleurexanthemus, 242 



" pustulosus 241 Harpes pustulosus. 



"• vigilans 245 Cybelef vigilans. 



Clisetetes columnaris 68 Tetradium columnaris. 



" lycoperdon 48 Stenopora 1 



" rugosus 67,18 



Cleidophorus 300 



* I retain the name Ceraurus of Geeen (1832), though fully aware of the arguments 

 of Barrande and others in favor of adopting Cheirurus of Betrich (1845). In 

 Green's monogi'aph, a figure of this trilobite, though imperfect, was given; and a cast 

 of the same was distributed widely both in Europe and America, and the genus became 

 well known to palaiontologists and amateurs among us. The view of M. Barrande that 

 the genus was not clearly described, and therefore untenable before a later name, is an 

 argument that could be applied with equal force to some of the genera proposed by 

 European naturalists; for of the Trilobites, the genera Homalonotus and Trinucleus 

 are, among others, examples of this kind, which names have nevertheless been adopted 

 by American palaeontologists without objection. The adoption of the generic name 

 Strophomena is another case in point, for the original description is not remarkable for 

 clearness. 



It may perhaps be true that the limits of this genus of Green were not well under- 

 stood in America ; but the fact that I erroneously referred a species of another genus 

 to Ceraurus is to be charged to me alone, and not to the obscurity of the description; 

 for I had the original of Green and other well-marked specimens before me at the 

 time, but referred the species to this genus in preference to proposing a new name, as 

 it did not seem referable to any genus, the description of which was accessible to me. 



In persisting in the use of this name, I believe I am sustained by common custom 

 among naturalists in all countries; and I am convinced that the name Ceraurus will 

 be restored, as have the names Homalonotus, Trinucleus, Acidaspis, and others, not- 

 withstanding the later proposed and more clearly defined generic names of subsequent 

 authors. 



t I adopt the genus Cijbele in deference to the opinion of Mr. Salter; not having 

 myself examined the claim of priority of the authors of Cybele and Encrinurus, which 

 are synonymous. 



