220 A ug. F. Foerste 
Since Dalmanella fairmountensis might easily be regarded as a 
small form of Dalmanella emacerata, hut scarcely as closely related 
to Dalmanella multisectaj this identification of the Fairmount 
species as Dalmanella meeki must be abandoned^ notwithstanding 
the horizon assigned to it by Meek. From this it seems evident 
that Miller himself may have been in error in assigning his spe- 
cimens of Dalmanella meeki to the Fairmount horizon. How he 
could possibly be in error regarding such a common form as DaF 
manella fairmountensis at a locality so frequently visited by Cin- 
cinnati collectors as Hamilton^ Ohio, it is difficult to understand. 
Possibly the fact that Dalmanella jugosa is common on the crests 
of all the hill ridges encircling Hamilton on the west, within three 
miles of the center of the city, and that the tops of the hills at the 
quarries within the boundaries of Hamilton are of Fairmount age, 
may have led to the confusion, especially in view of the fact that 
the intermediate region is poor collecting ground, and that the 
Platystrophia lynx horizon in the Mount Auburn bed is poorly 
developed there. It must be remembered that the subdivisions of 
the Cincinnatian, as established by Nickles, were not known at 
that time. In fact, the Catalogue published by Ulrich in 1880, 
the first serious attempt to work out the horizons of the various 
fossils, is full of errors natural to such a first attempt, when col- 
lectors often were not very communicative as to the source of their 
fossils. 
Among the various reasons which have led to the identification 
of Dalmanella meeki as the Fairmount species is Miller’s state- 
ment, following the republication of Meek’s description, that Or/Azr 
meeki is smaller than Orthis emacerata. Now as a matter of fact, 
the great majority of specimens of Orthis jugosa occurring on the 
hill ridges west of Hamilton are distinctly smaller than most of 
the specimens of Dalmanella emacerata which I have collected 
from the Middle Eden, and if the remainder of Miller’s compar- 
ison of Orthis meeki with Orthis emacerata be read, it must be con- 
ceded that this comparison is fully as applicable to Orthis jugosa 
as to Orthis fairmountensis^ especially when it is stated that the 
striae of Orthis meeki are not so fine. 
On the other hand, how could Mickleborough, Wetherby, and 
James be mistaken as to the form described by Miller, when all 
lived in the same town and met frequently. 
From a consideration of the preceding facts I have been led to 
