HYDE: CAMAROPHORELLA. . 55 
out is that of Cranaena subcllipiica; no other species occurs in the 
bed where it is found to which it will apply. 
From the foregoing it appeared to the writer that Winchell's de- 
scription was based on two species and that the one to which his 
description applies mostly is the one to which Hall and Clarke in 1895 
applied the name Cryptonella subelliptica. In this state the question 
was submitted to Dr. George H. Girty of the United States geological 
survey, to whom the writer is indebted for the following final word 
regarding the tv^e of the species under date of February 25, 1908: 
"The t^'pe of Cranaena flora appears to be at Alma, Michigan, and 
while studying the Winchell collection I made the following note: 
"Note on Centronella (f) flora Winchell. 
"This is the form which I have identified as Cranaena subelliptica. 
Winchell, however, included two widely different forms in this species, 
a Cranaena and a Camarophorella, though he himself became suspi- 
cious of this fact since on the figures which he had prepared, those of 
the Cranaena are labeled 't}^es' and those of the Camarophorella 
are labeled 'uninvestigated.' Both forms enter into the description, 
the surface ornamentation and the structure being described from 
the Camarophorella. 
"As a matter of synonymy I think you will have to consider the 
terebratuloid as the type of C. flora — all the more since Winchell in 
his description indicated a similar doubt of the Camarophorella and a 
similar choice of the terebratuloid for the type of the species. Thus, 
C. subelliptica becomes a synonym for C. flora (pars) and the Cama- 
rophorella becomes a new species unless it has been previously de- 
scribed." 
In the same communication, Dr. Girty kindly enclosed for com- 
parison, a sheet of manuscript written by himself some years ago, 
but never published, in which the same conclusion was reached regard- 
ing the generic position of Camarophorella as that herein proposed. 
It was based on material of the same species from the same locality 
as that described in the present paper, but not as nearly complete. 
The restriction of Winchell's name to the species later described 
by Hall and Clarke leaves the Sciotoville Camarophorella unpro\dded 
for. Accordingly a new specific name is here proposed with a sum- 
mary of the characters of specific importance. 
