On StrepteUtsma Profancl nm. — Sardeson. 288 
tached by their api(.*es to some biyozoau. Specimens from tlie 
Hudson stage "rarely exhibit a scar of attachment" (Komiii- 
ger op. cit. ) and in fact all were attached by their apices "to 
the rock'" (Billings). Thej^ were more or less attached to 
foreign bodies like other Tetracoralla (vide Kunth, op. cit.) 
and proportionally as solid bodies came in the way of their 
growth tiiey attached to them, even reaching out root-like an- 
gles towards such objects because of the protection that they 
afforded. Sometimes even two, three or more individuals have 
been attached to each other by their apices or by their sides 
with their apices free (see lig. 5, pi. XVI). When attached 
to a monticuliporoid coral or a brj'ozoan they are often over- 
grown by the sa^ie. Here it must be said that the .S. p<tr(i- 
siticuvi Ulrich is no other than a group of small individuals 
"parasitically attached to Hryozoa" and tangent to each other. 
Ulrich writes, "The generic position of this fossil is rather 
doubtful, yet it seems to me within the possibilities that it 
may be proven to be merely the j^oung of some species of Strep- 
telasma like the associated *S'. profandum.'''' "Still the probabil- 
ity of such a finding is so remote that I cannot hesitate to 
describe it as a natural form.'' "Against these being young 
corallites I would urge (1) their nearly equal size, and (2) 
their crow^ded habit of growth." "They could not have grown 
to larger size except by becoming detached from the support- 
ing body which is a supposition so unlikely that it is not to 
be entertained for a moment." But I have specimens thus 
attached which have grown to full size, and other large ones 
that seem to have broken from such attachment. Valnoplnjl- 
laui divaricanti Nicholson from Ohio (?) agrees with young 
attached groups of "/9. rusticu.in'" from Richmond, Indiana, 
before me, and I know of nothing else thatitcanbe. Nichol- 
son says (op. cit.) of P. duHiricans, "Among the specimens 
* * * are several which agree with Streptelasma coniicufuyi 
Hall in most respects, but differ in the fact that they produce 
lateral buds, or sometimes appear to divide fissiparously." 
His figure 10 shows much rather that one specimen is attached 
upon another, which is not uncommon in >S. profundaui and 
simulates lateral buddingclosely (see fig. 5, pi. XVI). Nicholson 
perhaps merely credits Billings as to the nature and value of 
this character, and Billings would seem to have been often de- 
