Preliminary Notes on Cincinnatian and Lexington Fossils 309 
In the Liberty beds it is common from Ohio and Indiana as far 
south as central Kentucky. It makes its first appearance in the 
upper part of the Middle or Clarksville division of the Waynes- 
ville bed, in Clinton and Warren counties, Ohio, and occurs also' 
in the Upper or Blanchester division. 
Typical specimens of Protarea richmondensis are associated 
with other specimens in which the septa are much less distinct. 
They appear to be replaced by papillae, those along the margins 
of the calyces being larger, those at the base being smaller. At 
times these papillate specimens resemble growths of Protarea rich- 
mondensis covered by a thin film of the so-called Stomatopora 
or Lahechia papillata. However, if this were the case, the so-called 
Lahechia papillata should be common also on other fossils at the 
same localities, which is not the case. This papillate form of 
Protarea is illustrated by figures 9A and 9B, on plate V, in volume 
XIV of this Bulletin, and also on Plate X, figs. 2A, and 2B ac- 
companying the present article. 
The most southern locality at which Pjotarea richmondensis 
has been found is at Raywick, in Marion county. On the eastern 
side of the Cincinnati geanticline it has been found as far south as 
directly east of Wyoming, in the southwestern part of Fleming 
county. At both localities the horizon was the Liberty bed. 
Protarea ? verneuili, Edwards and Haime. 
{Monographic des polypiers fossiles des Terrains Paloeozoiques, l8yi, p. 20g.) 
Polypier en masse elevee, convexe; calices polygonaux, peu 
inegaux, separes par des murailles assez minces et presentant a 
leiirs angles de petites colonnes greles: une vingtaine de cloisons 
peu inegales, assez minces; largeur des calices 3 millimetres. 
Silurien inferieur. Alexanderville, Ohio. 
Collection de Verneuil. 
Unfortunately the type has been lost. This species is not a 
Protareay that genus not possessing 20 septa. It scarcely could 
be a Columnaria since that genus was familar to Edwards and 
Haime and does not resemble Protarea. Moreover, the statement 
that the septa differed little in size and that the cell walls present 
at their angles some small slender columns scarcely agrees with 
Columnaria. As a matter of fact, however, some specimens of 
Calapwcia have ^a superficial resemblance to Protarea. The 
