﻿164 



Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 



ing the impression perfectly, the marks of the plates have not been pre- 

 served. 



G-enus Licrophycus, Billings. 1865. 

 This genus was established by Billings in Palaeozoic Fossils of Canada, 

 Vol. I., p. 99. The species described had broad, flat branches springing 

 from an apparent stem. The one from this group, however, L. flabellum, 

 M. & D. (Contributions to Palaeontology, loc. cit.), is the only one here 

 considered. The authors do not distinctly call the fossil a plant, but state 

 that the species consisted of numerous slender branches, "springing from 

 a common root or stem." All the branches are transversely wrinkled; 

 sometimes lying in a close bundle, and sometimes spread out in the shape of 

 a fan. The figure given is a fragment of a poor specimen. Better speci- 

 mens indicate that the branches were flexible and curved. From the best 

 impression seen by the writer (Plate 9, figure 8), he is reminded of the 

 appearance that would be made in mud by the expanded tentacles of a 

 crinoid. The transverse wrinkles have every appearance of it. It is his 

 opinion, however, that the form under study is really the impression of 

 the remains of a species of Graptolite, probably of the genus Inocaulis, 

 Hall. It is very different from the /. plumosus, Hall, but very similar 

 to a figure given of I. Walkeri, Spencer, in Bulletin of the State University 

 of Missouri, No. 1, by J. W. Spencer, and found in Canada. The name 

 Inocaulis flabellum is suggested for our species, instead of Licrophycus 

 flahellum. It is quite evident that it is not a plant, and the probabilities 

 are that it is Hydrozoic in its origin. 



G-enus Dactylophycus, M. & D. 1878. 

 This genus, with two species, was described in Contributions to Palaeon- 

 tology (loc. cit.) They were called D. tridigitatum and D. quadripartitum. 

 They are, in the first place, so similar, as to warrant their being placed 

 together under the same name. They were, too, described from mere frag- 

 ments, and there is no saying how much or how little of the fossil the figures 

 represent. Certainly they are not worthy of a distinct genus ; they are 

 not plants; they are similar to a form, figured by Hall, as an undetermined 

 species of Palceophycus ; and they were named by Orton, in " Geology of 

 Ohio," Yol. I., p. 387, in 1873, Palazophycus radiata. They probably 

 represent portions of burrows, if, indeed, they are not wholly inorganic in 

 their origin. 



Review. 



Reviewing now all these supposed Algae, there is not a single one which 

 seems entitled to remain in the class. They are referred to three different 

 sources : 



