Notes on Cincinnatian Fossil Types 
293 
consists apparently of a succession of lamellae, each from 1 to 2 
millimeters in thickness, locally more or less free from each other. 
Protaraea vetusta occurs in the cystid beds in the lower part 
of the Hull formation, in the Trenton, a short distance above water 
level on the eastern side of Nepean point at Ottawa, in Canada. 
Lambe figures the tubules between the corallites in Protaraea 
vetusta, and Whiteaves, in his description of Protaraea magna clearly 
describes them. No tubules have been noticed in the spaces be- 
tween the corallites of the Richmond species long correlated with 
Protaraea vetusta, but for which the name Protaraea richmondensis 
was proposed recently. In fact, I have long doubted whether the 
Richmond form even belonged to the same genus as the Trenton 
Protaraea vetusta. Both the calyces and the interspaces of the 
Richmond form are strongly papillose, and clearly defined septa 
are rare except in a few gerontic specimens. 
The genotype of Protaraea is the Richmond, and not the 
Trenton form, as may be seen by consulting figures 6 and 6a on 
plate 14 accompanying the original description of the genus, (1851„ 
Edwards and Haime, Mon. d. Polyp. Foss. d. Terr. Pal.) 
7. Calapoecia cribriformis, Nicholson 
{Plate III, Fig. 5) 
187Jf. Columnopora cribriformis Nicholson, Geol. Mag., dec. 2, 1, p. 253 
1875. Columnopora cribriformis Nicholson, Geol. Surv. Ohio, Pal. 2, p. 187, Plate 
22, Figs. 8, 8a, 8b 
1879. Columnopora cribriformis Nicholson, Tab. Corals Pal. Period, p. 16 
Plate 7, Figs. 2-2d 
The first figured specimen of this species (figure ^8 in the Paleon- 
tology of Ohio) at present forms No. 216 in the Jame: ^collection in 
the Museum at Chicago University, and a new illustration of this 
type is offered in the present bulletin. The same specimen was used 
also for figure 2 in Nicholson^s work on the Tabulate Corals. The 
calyces of the corallites have circular, rather than polygonal outlines. 
According to Nicholson the origin of this specimen was: “In the 
Cincinnati Group (Hudson River Formation), near Cincinnati, 
Ohio (collected by Mr. U. P. James). The expression “near 
Cincinnati, however, must be interpreted in a liberal sense, since 
the specimen almost certainly was obtained from the Richmond 
group of some part of Ohio, Indiana, or Kentucky, where it ranges 
from the Liberty to the Whitewater and Saluda members. In these 
