On the Genus Monticulipora. 



29 



together, though their minute characters, as will appear hereafter, are 

 very different." 



For one, who rarely gives credit to American authors for labor per- 

 formed in this department of science, to charge them with his own 

 mistakes maj be regarded as a little cool. 



Chetetes Jletcheri of the Ohio Palaeontology, is now called Monticu- 

 lipora ( JSetero try pa ) ulrichi. As in the last case of erroneous identifi- 

 cation, Prof. Nicholson was the first to call this form the Jletcheri of 

 Edwards and Haime, and I am unable to find an}' warrant for his ob- 

 servation in the new definition, in these words. " In common with 

 various American observers, I have formerly identified the present form 

 with the 31. Jletcheri, Edwards and Haime, of the Wenlock Limestone 

 of Britain. Iam, however, now satisfied that the examples from the 

 Cincinnati Group certainly can not be properly thus identified with our 

 present knowledge." 



Chetetes subpulchellus is now Monticulipora. (Heterotrypa) subpul- 

 chella, and is said to be rare, at Cincinnati. After the publication of 

 the Ohio Palaeontology, I identified, with the description and figures 

 of this species, a common form occurring at an elevation of about 150 

 feet above low water mark, but with the new definition and limitation 

 the form intended is not so evident. 



When the dalei, ramosa, majnmulata, and nodulosa are associated, 

 under the same generic name, with the jamesi and gracilis, the re- 

 maining polyp corals, in the Hudson River Group, may as well be 

 dumped into the same genus, without attempting a subdivision. 



Chetetes petropolitanus is now abandoned as an American species, 

 and the Russian form of Pander is called Monticulipora (Diplotrypa) 

 petropolitana. And it is needless to say, that the singular paragraph, 

 which concludes the remarks on this species, in the Ohio Palaeontology, 

 is also abandoned, viz: u I am disposed to think that Lichenalia con- 

 centric". Hall, has been founded upon the epitheca of C. petropolitan us, 

 which is often of sufficient tenuity to allow the bases of coraliites to be 

 seen through it." 



In 1874, I stated that the '-Chetetes petropolitanus, found in the 

 Lower Silurian rocks of Russia, in which Lonsdale discovered the di- 

 visional laminae of one tube developed within the area of one which pre- 

 existed, does not exist in this localitv."* And in 1877, in the 

 Catalogue of the American Palaeozoic Fossils, I condemned the applica- 



* Cin. Quar. Jour. ScL, vol. i., p. 368. 



