ee BA ot oh ee J a 1 o.49)% im, or) 7) ‘See’ Oe ACI CON Oe i 14 ary * : UV AG RE Ree aad betg gba ft MRNA Vevanuantquaeaan Skt aH, “ KU hac PTR ta at Dat! at Peace Wr ed deed es 4404 soniteens Meare ie 4 OA Aiken ih evan On ah ast Yad Ora aus Wega A qu DANO AG DRIER Raise lk Ay tla ‘ ky «| ° eh art) aN AN ANT antes Lat AH ARE sae ‘ vaebih
ya pease teen do
‘ a. crt
ete
“ Toad ) is ance wast nd
ty PAU AN Mr gtaeed tone Sis Nat
139 8 Ng dey ’ ac) Ie ati oa a
cule ata whe aoe Me a)
anys akaal ne AD, Weel
K' ee
4 4 | mt Doky ami ait angie ‘alee
* ene yey dhe) Beh Wary ‘ ng acetate eri)
wi vay ay ( mA if ‘ i veh 4 ale i A Ay ae sally oy in cee fu ey PARE iM 4'h19: ne ALAA
1 5 on ' 4 i a ee MK maa f 1) AER eer i793 Yat hy . 4 Nat we A bi 2h\ h, q A, vf u NY] Nhe ai Salih telat ih) Suid Raliahsy act’) a ty pot ne ett ae kes Para ty N tks j 3 ve a “fh ieee cy Wey " ‘] os ie pepo ue iy fev
f Pala +10 Lela Hci hy eel Fl : ‘ Re hock if an aN ay, seat st a9 vey ead es " ve ( rae Rian Ah i 1 haa Lek RAILS Baie c 4 Me sae eae e ‘* hae aly hanes 1M 414) 4 ‘ oF * i. Kan 4 ty) ‘ a4 Vion Saad aa ALA ‘ ‘ eine ti ii at as (hea Nines cas v4 let 429A ‘ '
; t ay’ ; he MUA NU I) esate 4 eta hy: ; Sh iN } Hf) ( rake "4 thi ; b q y "t VIER rat 4 W'a\4 agi te bt Men ty ALB fu Set NG SADE a at ‘ ; bh VAAN ny SCR Ce CCM PALL ea \ 0 i Sse : LE A at y 4 ek) Kaan 8 Va ai Me Ita SEM aN tarstbrel te Oy 4) a4) 1 Sho 1 455 NA , \ Ae td| i wane a \ CK Ria Oe eal F i DRAMA abel ate } ye ri ttark AA a a) *)Y NS Syayig' ’, ey AN nh : aa Si) it i ash Tah Ao Ht: vari "¥ i” Ok Rat v0) +0 Le Aa a\i as > ek iy i , ‘ I (ae ty i Bitty i i i A Li eiicy i
Hah * Rhy aus RMAC E j
Ah aU *
‘ y aggre Vi
i) a 4 tae *y AN wate ' a ¥ wd ity ins vp Eira) mK) $ + Ahern "s Mg is Cid Nea aN?
gegeade rat ih 44 LA iy ah Dh 1h ie SVE A, ists ct oak we ’ ’ , t
ane:
thn unas
Py ‘ 4 } ; eC Ra tah } sets Dis wad Ve yea d 49 ¢ y Ciereya ate ‘| ad 4 ; PINE HINT, A, Sha tea as i) ) Ay neni) i ‘ + 0 pha ikalalt gs ay sd) SESRBEDEEERC YON At kan Nae ‘ yell iP “ Ute sa feed aan Ar . a8) ie Wen ee Ay 4 ANN, ce \ i) Ay AN iy ny \
4a Pr ROA IK hea TOS ie ut ! ab Teo Tad 4 SENSE on DUO ahs hy ays Uw Wiest ay AN ACON TRAAM I DEy UhiG \ ' Md CA ae ea COD Mis Jieed Fr ' CAN acathet Aa * t i oi ‘ Haag WV Ee ae ae) gawa'a ave Teas es ESR A Y Catbalices Osh OY
, ‘ t a LA ae Fue NN oH
A i age dinea nen as agi NG ie 1 WGA ,) h Fa AA Ahege ‘ eas
oo i
ote HD
4 9 “4 ‘ ates
ees ees Oe) ‘¢ nia At rk 44
Lau foes egalo atv 9 0044 Ps sia ate ie Select La : ft ' a DY
; a) Whey ia ae ft BRAD “ Not) “ ald MAS a aks a's 8 a a ‘
Bisse eae Wad ash v4 4 ) DR MON ot}
catty) Soaring bs ‘ NAG Weg 1048! AN ie eay a ak View Ag A ihe My + re 1 ihn: ‘ ' if ‘a Cae on i Ores ha +4. Wy ke Mts esta
Ny . ‘ j on UL ade ee ‘ i i 4 ae car ya aean u 4M i NN i Way (ead n ese a thane Nee \ A 7
ye 4 y fie i “ve ee
wide Rahal HN) ane gee een “ ey i i Mi Ro ie Any A i ee ae ed iat bi
Pere Chey ai in UK sik bath ” vw) mi } i DORAL A aE en 1s CK Re! es Add aoa ae MTR Saar UA SL AC MY NC a dra A ay DOC A COUR CCA a SON Wi he oo 4 pA USK Xt 4) OHA Re Ashe Wah ; A Maa Nh GA thy ri * SALAS NN hay a] we CAD in PRN RRC SR r ily Arete) tae Mahan om GW Svea ky Weak ey tet 4 409 DOOM RIOR S 1 UPA bY
1) t 1% ¥ yay VRS Hass 8b Laahan ’
DON eo! Piel ae Ly WANN NG es Kas a8 Cet tt
My ats tii 144 as ie vtune ate a Rou fis anise LRN t as Sheehy SW tt, pen te vino it yy ae Brot Sy a Wiese dawg 4 ¢ mn ‘ eee eM hy vas aes has ew oe) cata s “sugid SAN ated 4
if Ona ah! Tena mut
Sh
4
SMITHSONIAN INS Poe ELON UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
MOE UME XOX
C2 “?
ee ir. Ei a y ¢ a ‘ ota
WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFI 1906
REE ey a ‘onal Museu": A
—
ADVERTISEMENT.
The publications of the National Museum consist of two series, Proceedings and Bulletins.
The Proceedings, the first volume of which was Issued in 1878, are intended primarily as a medium for the publication of original papers based on the collections of the National Museum, setting forth newly acquired facts in biology, anthropology, and geology derived there- from, or containing descriptions of new forms and revisions of limited groups. A volume is issued annually or oftener for distribution to libraries and scientific establishments, and in view of the importance of the more prompt dissemination of new facts, a limited edition of each paper is printed in pamphlet form in advance. The dates at which these separate papers are published are recorded in the table of contents of the volume.
The present volume is the thirtieth of this series.
The Bulletin, publication of which was begun in 1875, is a series of more elaborate papers, issued Separately, and, like the Proceedings, based chiefly on the collections of the National Museum.
A quarto form of the Bulletin, known as the ‘Special Bulletin,” has been adopted in a few instances in which a larger page was deemed indispensable.
Since 1902 the volumes of the series known as ** Contributions from the National Herbarium,” and containing papers relating to the botan- ical collections of the Museum, have been published as Bulletins.
Ricnarp Ratupun, Acting Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
TIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
AsHMEAD, Wruitam H. Descriptions of New Hymenoptera Trom) apan.~—No,wt48: “May 1t, 19064 = See.
New genera: Matsumuraius, Proterocryptus, Hemiephialtes, Nesopim- pla, Nawaia, Acanthormius.
New species: Matsumuraius grandis, Exephanes koebelei, Stenicneu- mon sapporoensis, Melanichneumon japonicus, Rhexidermus japoni- cus, Phaeogenes japonicus, Bathymetis sapporoensis, Scinascopus japonicus, S. albomaculatus, Adiostola polita, Paraphylax albisca- pus, Hemiteles sapporoensis, Proterocryptus nawaii, Cryptus alberti, Mesostenus octocinctus, Pimplopterus japonicus, Megarhyssa jeponica, Hemiephialtes glyptus, Pimpla pluto, Apechthis orbitalis, A. sappo- roensis, Epiurus unnulitarsis, 2. hakonensis, E. persimilis, Nesopim- pla naranye, Theronia japonica, Odontomerus nikkoensis, Calliclisis incerta, Sychnoleter japonicus, Rhimphalea dubia, Asthenara rufo- cincta, Bassus japonicus, Syrphoctonus atamiensis, Exochus hako- nensis, Campoplex hakonensis, C. bicoloripes, Nawaia japonica, Teme- lucha japonica, Pristomerus chinensis, Ateleute pallidipes, Phenocarpa formosx, Kahlia secunda, Ephedrus japonicus, Aclitus nawaii, Aphidius gifuensis, A. japonicus, A. lachnivorus, A. areolatus, Lysi- phlebus japonicus, Meteorus japonicus, Macrocentrus gifuensis, Phane- rotoma flava, Ascogaster atamiensis, Glyptapanteles politus, G. ininor, G. femoratus, G. (Apanteles) japonicus, G. nawaii, Microplitis atamiensis, M. sapporoensis, Melanobracon tibialis, Macrodyctium flavipes, Chelonogastra koebelei, C. plewralis, Microbracon japellus, Zaglyptogastra abbottii, Xenobius albipes, Heterogamus fusciatipennis, HH. thoracicus, Rhogas fuscomaculatus, R. japonicus, Ischiogonus hakonensis, Chremylus japonicus, Acanthormius japonicus.
Banta, ARTHUR M.,and Waxtpo L. McArTer. The Life His- tory of the Cave Salamander, Spelerpes Maculicaudus Wage) Nor 14482" April. 2.19064)... le 8
Bartscu, Pauu. Descriptions of Two New Naiads.—No. ee remmeranmOn OMG eke te: we Oy lug ete Se
New species: Nephronaias flucki, Diplodon huapensis.
=a occ under Dall, William Healey _:.....---.-...- Basster, Ray 8S. A Study of the James Types of Ordovi iclan and Silurian Bryozoa,—No. 1442. April 2,1906¢___.__-_-
393-395
321-369
« Date of publication.
Vv
Vil TABLE OF CONTENTS.
BassteR, Ray 8. See under Ulrich, Edward O-. ---.------ Bruner, LAwrENCE. Synoptic List of Paragnayan <Acri- did, or Locusts, with Descriptions of New Forms.—No, 14620 J uneid 219068 oe ee
New genera: Amblyscapheus, Meloscirtus, Orthoscapheus, Omalotettix, Leiotettix, Eurotettix.
New species: Apotettiv bruneri, Batrachidea notata, Hyalopteryx lamel- lipes, IT. specularis, Orphulella obscura, Amblytropidia robusta, Ambly- scapheus lineatus, Meloscirtus australis, Munatia australis, Tropinotus mexicanus, T. affinis, T. lineatus, Alcamenes cristatus, Zoniopoda similis, Z. fissicauda, Z. exilipes, Diponthus paraguayensis, Leptysma argentina, L. gracilis, Arnilia coccineipes, Inusia pallida, Paracornops paraguayense, P. aquaticum, P. politum, Bucephalacris paraguayen- sis, Aleuas brachypterus, Paraleuas fosteri, P. punctipennis, P. minor, Orthoscapheus roseipennis, Omalotettix signatipes, Dichroplus robustus, D. paraguayensis, D. dubius, D. brasiliensis, D. cinctipes, Leiotettix viridis, L. punctipes, L. sanguineus, L. flavipes, Scotussa rubripes, S. brasiliensis, Chlorus vittatus, Eurotettia femoratus, E. minor.
New name: Parascopas.
Buscx, Aucusr. A Review of the American Moths of the Genus Cosmopteryx Hiibner.—No. 1463. June 4, 1906¢_-
New species: Cosmopterpx clandestineila,
—. Tineid Moths from Southern Texas, with Descrip- tions of New Species. —No. 1465. June 4, 1906¢._____--
New genera: Numata, Untomia, Euprora.
Newspecies: Telphusa acaciella, Agnippe evippeella, Numata bipunctella, Evippe pollostella, Recurvaria elachistella, Phthorimxa minor, Untomia untomiella, Tamarrha bittenella, Mompha punctiferella, Gracilaria (Dialectica) gunniella, Coriscium texanella, Euprora argentiliniella,
CAUDELL, ANDREW Netson. The Locustide and Gryllidee (Katydids and Crickets) collected by W. T. Foster in Para- guay.—No. 1450. April 21, 19064
New genus: Niphelimum.
New species: Homatoicha fuscopunctata, Ceraia similis, C. cornutoides, Phulloptera alliedea, P. fosteri, Turpilia subinermis, Xiphelimum amplipennis, Xiphidium strictoides.
Cuark, H. Watton. See under EVERMANN, BARTON W...-- Dati, WitiiamM Hearey, and Paut Bartsca. Notes on
Japanese, Indopacitic, and American Pyramidellidee—No. ioe.) Maye), 19064 New subgenus: Nisiturris, Babella, Egilina. New species: Pyramidella ( Tiberia) japonica, P.( Actweopyramis ) digita- lis, P. (Iphiana) lischkei, Turbonilla (Chemnitzia) abseida, T. (C.) approximata, T. (C.) infantula, T. (C.) actopora, T. (C.) acosmia, T. ( Nisiturris) crystallina, T. (Lancella) bella, Odostomia ( Parthe- nina) meta, O. (Chrysallida) dua, O. (Pyrgulina) lecta, O. ( Odetta) lectissima, O. (O.) felix, O. ( Evalea) culta, O. (Odostomia) mauriti- ana, O. (O.) limpida.
« Date of publication.
Page.
149-164
613-694
TO7-713
235-244
851-855
321-369
TABLE OF CONTENTS. VII
Page. New subspecies: Pyramidella ( Tiberia) pusilla jacksonensis, Turbonilla
( Cingulina) cingulata laticingula, Odostomia ( Pyrgulina ) densecostata upoluensis.
New names: Pyramidella (Pharcidella) moffati, P. (Tiberia) dunkeri, Turbinilla (Chemnitzia) garrettiana, T. (Pyrgisculus) candidissima, T. (Mormula) aulica, T. (Lancella) peasei, T. ( Babella) cexlatior, Odostomia ( Menestho) exaratissima, O. (Amaura) martensi, O. (Odos- tomia) desimana.
Evermann, Barton W., and H. Wawron Crark. New fishes from Santo Domingo.—No. 1478. June 27, 1906¢__ 851-855
New species: Platypecilus perugix, P. dominicensis, Sicydium buscki. GripLeY, JAMES WiutuiaAms. A New Ruminant from the Pleis- tocene of New Mexico.—No. 1447. April 4, 1906¢______- 165-167 New genus: Liops. New species: Liops zuniensis. GitmMorkr, CHARLES W. Notes on Some Recent Additions to the Exhibition Series of Vertebrate Fossils.—No. 1460.
2A eile DAULG Go PE eatt oiey ae et eo 607-611 Hrepuicka, Aes. Brains and Brain Preservatives.—No. TAU SS TEI Sirs BO oO Ge Ale oa 245-320
JORDAN, Davip Starr. A Review of the Sand Lances or Ammodytide of the Waters of Japan.—No. 1464. June 4,
Pi Cee ae eee se er Ree ese ELD eS seh ALVIN SEALE. Deseriptions of Six New Species of Fishes from Japan.—No. 1445. April 4, 1906¢ _____. 143-148
New genus: Sayonara. New species: Phoxinus. septentrionalis, Rhodeus oryzex, Sayonara sat- sume, Stelgistrum mororane, Rhinogobius nagoyx, Calitonymus kita- hare. —+—— and JoHN OTTERBEIN SNYDER. A Synopsis of the Sturgeons (Acipenseride) of Japan.—No. 1455. May 9, eT rine Mee aguate tae Se a whee ee ene eek SS BX ia 397-3898 —. Ona Species of Loach; Misgurnus Decem- cirrosus (Basilewsky) from Northern China.—No. 1474. -LPTETIE US LTT GN roe ae pa aaa pe RE ROR Cae 61319 2 of) The Givat Bass of Japan Sng, 1476. ae che PSUS Ue SS UE Se aap Nae 8 NS aa ae es ee 841-845
and Epwry Carry Starks. List of Fishes Collected on Tanega and Yaku, Offshore Islands of Southern Japan, by Robert Van Vieck Anderson, with Descriptions of Seven New Specieg —No. 1462.. June 4, 1906¢_._.-...---.--.. 695-706 New species: Corythroichthys tanake, Atherina morrisi, Cristiceps flam- meus, Blenntus ellipes, Salarias andersoni, S. tanegasime, Petroscir- les loxozonus.
aDate of publication.
VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS.
JORDAN, Davip Starr, and RICHARD CRITTENDEN MCGREGOR. Description of a New Species of Threadfin (Family Poly- nemide) from Japan.—No. 1470. June 4, 19064 ______--
New species: Polydactylus agonast.
Martruew, WituiAM Dinter. The Osteology of Sinopa, A Creodont Mammal of the Middle Eocene.—No. 1449. May pS al S10 Ree’ ee eens Lo AE RTS 2 A
New genus: T'ritemnodon. New species: Sinopa grangeri. McArTrEE, Watpo L. See under Banta, ARTHUR M..-.. ---- McGrecor, RicHarp CRITTENDEN. Sve under JORDAN, DA Van STAR 25.5. SoS as eee oe fe eee res eee oe Miuter, Gerrit §., Jr. Notes on Malayan Pigs.—No. 14-662 = Tome 1S, AGS oe Se hae et eee a Sor New species: Sus gargantua, S. jubatus, S. jubatulus, S. rhionis, S. peninsularis, S. niadensis, S. babi, S. mimus. . The Mammals of Engano Island, West Sumatra.— No: 1472.7 June: 4.71906 @2 | oe ee ee ee ee eee New species: Mus enganus, Pteropus enganus, Kerivoula engana. OBERHOLSER, Harry ©. Notes on Birds from German and British East Africa.—No. 1469. June 4, 1906¢_____.__--
New subspecies: Pomatorhynchus senegalus armenus.
Renn, James A. G. Descriptions of Three New Species of Katydids and a New Genus of Crickets from Costa Rica.
oe) No. 1459: Mane 24, 1906 7 epee
New genus: Symphyloxiphus. New species: Turpilia grandis, Ischnomela pulchripennis, Mimetica crenulata, Symphyloxiphus magnificum.
———. Notes on South American Grasshoppers of the Sub- family Acridine (Acridide), with Descriptions of New Genera and Species.—No. 1453. May 9, 19064
New genus: Borellia, Stereotettia. i New Species: Amblytropidia chapadensis, Cocytotettix linearis, Stauror- hectus brevipennis, Borellia carinata, Stereotettic paralogistes, Scyllina uniformis, S. suffusa, S. smithi, S. schistocercoides, Stirapleura brunnea. ‘ New subspecies: Staurorhectus longicornis variegatus. Scuaus, WiiuraAmM. Descriptions of New South American Moths.—No. 1444. April 2, 1906¢ - : New genera: Mantruda, Makapta, Kohlera, Carbona, Phibromia,
Schazama, Corubia, Caroga, Peteroma, Batyma, Islea, Coscaga, Oca- laria, HTyponeuma.
« Date of publication.
Page.
813-815
203-233
67-83
813-815
737-158
81
9-8
bo Or
801-811
597-605
37
1-391
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
New species: Arsenura biundulata, A. drucei, A. thomsoni, A. samba, Automeris meridana, A. vomona, A. annulata, A. innoxia, A. pom- ifera, A. jucundoides, A. hamata, A. moresca, A. parilis, A. orodina, A. curvilinea, Phricodia baroma, Copaxa rufinans, C. marona, C. lineata, Hylesia terranea, Caviria vestalis, Eloria cubana, EH. aroensis, E. serena, Doa cubana, Mantruda erratica, Phecada joanna, Car- thara roseilinea, C. umbrata, Lauron albiplaga, Eriopyga griseirena, Nylinissa lignitis, Eudipna templada, Nenia randa, N. sabrella, Ingura sabulosa, Makapta carnescens, Kohlera nebula, K. bruma, Perigea charada, P. cenola, P. secorva, Nonagria inferna, Hadena jonea, Carbona obscura, Oligia fuscoma, Semiophora bastula, 8. punctula, Eustrotia geoga, Iscadia nigra, I. duckinfieldia, I. stroca, Teeniocampa naolina, Cophanta chrysarginea, Plusia caudata, Acan- thodica pamela, Trileuca ochracea, Phibromia narecta, Rhaesena jalapena, R. nezeila, R. rubromarginata, Phiprosopus hypenoides, Casandria chirica, Schazama angustipennis, Corubia testacea, Dory- odes elongata, Caroga costalis, Phochlena cuprea, Palindia argenti- linea, Gonodonta marmorata, Homopyralis picta, H. pandama, Matigramma pamela, Amphigoniabrunnea, Peteroma lignea, Capnodes virginia, Triommatodes angulata, Bendis mascara, B. thara, Cha- mina choria, Orthogramma ferogia, O. hermesia, Coenipeta glaucoides, CO. laurena, C. medalba, C. umbrata, C. musa, C. suborellata, C. sub- varia, C. albidentina, Tyrissa carola, Sorygaza acutalis, Neoherminia chisena, Bleptina candalis, B. clara, B. margotalis, Tortricodes pau- lensis, T. dulcena, Megachyta nolualis, M. sabularea, Rhosologia pal- lida, Adrocampa atomosa, Aristaria orizabalis, A. picatalis, A. trinitalis, A. conspicua, A. bocantis, A. ricalis, A aztecalis, A. stolalis, Renia ordenalis, R. cacalis, R. bipunctalis, Palthis gnoma, P. bertha- lis, P. calealis, Mastigophorus pandes, M. lineata, Batyma onesalis, B. francalis, Ilsea bormia, Coscaga angulata, Ocalaria guarana, Nice- tas paulosa, Hyponeumu leucanioides, Hypena oronalis, Argyractis cineralis, A. guadarensis, A. herminalis, A. jalapalis, A. cyloialis, A. sinitalis, Cataclysta jaliscalis, C. orizabalis, C. scaralis, Oligo- stigma ducalis, Cymoriza paroalis, C. jonesalis, Paraponyx dianalis, P. paulalis, Aulacodes moralis, A. templalis, A. confusalis, A pampa- lis, Nymphula franciscalis, Parthenodes berthalis, Macalla paranensis, M. albescens, Jocara apicalis, Deuterollyta pagiroa, Pyralis garalis.
ScHucHERT, CHARLES. A New American Pentremite.—No. SRST eh Ut OSI 2) 6 Se a Ig ee Se ee
New species: Pentremites maccalliei.
SEALE, Atvin. See under Jorpan, Davip SrarR._-_---.. -- SNYDER, JOHN OTTERBEIN. Secunder JORDAN, DAVID STARR- 833-834, Starks, Epwin Cuapin. On a Collection of Fishes made by P. O: Simons in Ecuador and Peru.—No. 1468. June 14, CDMS, GSE ere Bd ean Ll RE a a8 Bia Poe Ie a eee New species: Galeichthys simonsi, Tachysurus equatorialis, Ihamdia gilli, Prochilodus caudifasciatus, Tylosurus jordani, Neptomenus crassus Paralabrax callaensis, Isacia. venusta, Pomadasis burro, Scizwna
gilberti.
Ix
Page.
759-760 143-148
397-398, 841-845
761-800
@ Date of publication.
X TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Srarks, Epwin Cuapin. See under JoRDAN, Davip STarr_ 695-706 STEJNEGER, LEONHARD. A New Salamander from North Carolina.—No. 1457. May 22) 190642295 oe. 2 eee 559-562 New species: Plethodon shermani. —. A New Tree Toad from Costa Rica.—No. 1471. June 419064. 22 2S Sl ee ee eee 817-818 New species: [Hyla phlebodes.
Trur, FrepsertckK W. Description of a New Genus and Species of Fossil Seal from the Miocene of Maryland.—
No. 1475; »dune-16,) 1906622 ee eens, 5 eee 835-840 New genus: Leptophoca. New species: Leptophoca lenis.
Uxricu, Epwarp O., and Ray 8S. Basster. New American Paleozoic Ostracoda. Notes and Descriptions of Upper Carboniferous Genera and Species. —No. 1446. April 4,
LOG 6 we AS er UA ee eh a en ee 149-164 New families: Leperditellide, Kirkbyide. New genus: Paraparchites. New species: Paraparchites humerosus, Beyrichia emaciata, Beyrich- iella gregaria, B. bolliaformis, Kirkbya pinguis, K. centronota, Cythere haworthi, Bairdia beedei, Cypridina subovata. New varieties: Beyrichiella bolliaformis tumida, Bairdia beedei abrupta.
VauGuan, T. Waytanp. A New Species of Coenocyathus
from California and the Brazilian Astrangid Corals.—No. TAT(..~ Ste : BAP 9OG SO ars ee 847-850 New. species: Cenocyathus bowersi, Astrangia brasiliensis, A. rathbuni. Three New Fungi, with a Description of a Speci- men of Fungia Granulosa Klunzinger and a Note on a Specimen of Fungia Concinna Verrill.—No. 1473. June 20, 19064. _ .-
New species: Fungia japonica, F. samboangensis, F. madagascarensis.
Watcotr, CHARLES D. Cambrian Faunas of China.—No. 145630 Mag 23; 1906. 920.2 2 ee eee ee New genus: Blackwelderia. New species: Coscinocyathus elvira, Discinopsis sulcatus, Yorkia orien- talis, Orthis (Plectorthis) agreste, O. (P.) kichouensis, Scenella dila- tatus, Platyceras willisi, Stenotheca simplex, Agraulos armatus, A. nitida, A. obscura, Avregularis, A. uta, A. vicina, A. capax, A. melie, Anomocare bigshyi, A. eriopia, A. flava, Anomocarella contigua, A. irma, Ptychaspis bella, Ptychoparia comus, P. inflata, P. lilia, P. nereis, P. undata, P. vesta, P. maia, P. (Liostracus) intermedia, P. (L.) subrugosa, Solenopleura pauperata, Dolichometopus hyrie. Species undetermined: Ohbolus (Lingulepis), Orthis (Plectorthis), Anomocare, Ptychoparia. New variety: Dorypyge richthofeni levis.
« Date of publication.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
cies of South American Geometrid Moths.—No. 1456.¢ EES TLE TSN Goh tal Sa se ea a cE
New genera: Celurotricha, Neodeta, Notoptya, Obelopteryx, Cacolyces, NXenomigia, Aphanophleps, Hemipterodes, Lobocleta, Lobura, Omo- pera, Pammeris, Schistocolpia, Bombia, Cophopoda, Hemiphricta, Neozuga, Scoriopsis, Idialcis, Lepidospora, Neazata, Atopodes, Aventiopsis, Neodontopera, Syncrenis.
7 New species: Antiplecta cxsia, A. cinerascens, A. nigripleta, A. trian- gularis, Capnophylla albiceps, Celurotricha curvilinea, Epiplema excoria, Gathynia cassata, G. ochripennis, Neodeta fusciata, N. nana, N. ochriplaga, Notoptya fuscularia, Siculodopsis dubia, S. gracilinea, Dolichoneura nigrinotata, Obelopteryx angusta, Pycnoneura rectili- neata, Atyria cruciata, Cyllopoda bipuncta, C. radiata, Dialephtis celata, Ephialtias morena, Euchontha casirona, Polypetes aniplata, Scea obliquaria, Scotura discolor, S. nigrata, Stenoplastis transversa, Xenomigia veninotata, Anophylla obeliscata, Comibena flavicoma,
_ Drucia excrescens, D. quinquemaculata, D. semispurcata, Gelasma
subrufescens, Melochlora affinis, M. genuflexa, M. hydatodes, M. obnu-
bilata, M. vagilinea, Miantonota rectilinea, Oospila sellifera, Racheo- lopha carnelunata, R. coerulea, R. confluaria, R. continuata, R. derasa,
R. rubescens, R. extensata, R. florepicta, R. lilacina, R. lingipalpis,
R. nivetacta, R. pallida, R. sporadata, Tachyphyle costiscripta, T.
subfulvata, Anisodes abruptaria, A. delineata, A. flavicornis, A. flavi-
puncia, A. leucaniata, A. potreria, A. stricticata, A. subviolescens,
A. terrens, Asellodes hebetior, Aphanophleps vinosaria, A, vulpina, Cremodes concomitans, C. curta, C. fuscifrons, Crypsityla borri- garia, ©. ignifera, C. subrosea, C. subrubella, Deinopygia conifer, D. faleipennis, D. horrifica, D. percurrens, D, triangulata, Dichromato- -podia cervina, D. purpurea, D. rufinedia, Dysephyra albidiscata, Emmiltis blandula, E. omissa, E. tricincta, Eumacrodes excilinea, Hemaleacomminuta, H. fragmentaria, H. venipunctata, Hemipterodes subnigrata, Heterephyra aurata, H. fulvescens, IH. grisea, H. scripturata, FF semibrunnea, Lipomelia tristrigata, Lobocleta translineata, Lobura ocellata, Mnesithetis decolor, M. rufipuncta, Omopera angulata, Pam- meris albiguttata, P. fumata, Ptychopoda finita, P. fissilinea, P. flavi- cincta, P. flexivitta, P. imbellis, P. marascia, P. muscifasciata, P. purpureovittata, P. rufarenaria, P. similinea, P. tenebrica, P. usti- margo, P. vagula, P. vitticostata, Schistocolpia crinita, Sterrha farada, Synelys wrufata, Tricentra aurilimbata, T. biguttata, T. brunneomar- ginata, T. colligata, T. consequens, T. flavistigma, T. ignefumosa, T. percrocea, T.vinosata, Eudulebasipuncta, E. parca, Leptidule sulcifera, Cambogiacancellaia, Bombia protuberans, Erateina brunnea, E. satel- lites, Oreonoma rubriplaga, Trochiodes subpohliata, Cophopoda pyra- lidimima, Dochephora fumosa, D. nudata, D. obscurata, Sebastia assimilis, S. balteata, S. deldaria, S. dormita, S. humerata, S. olivaria, S. pallidistriga, Tephroclystia anita, T. antaria, T. collineata, T. condu- plicata, T. consors, T. defimbriata, T. discipuncta, T. gaumaria, T. gos- lina, T.hastaria, T. helenaria, T. indecisa, T. infrequens, T. kurtia, T. leucographata, T. mediobrunnea, T. mollita, T. muscistrigata, T. parci- rufa, T. perolivata, T. pictimargo, T. planipennis, T. rauca, T. sellia, T.
« Date of publication.
xO
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
semilignata, T. semirufescens, T. subalba, T. submiranda, T. sylpharia, T. waria, T. violetta, T. westonaria, Lomographa discolorata, L. proximata, L. ultimata, Berberodes cassiteris, B. delicata, B. simplex, B. violacea, Cirrhosoma curvata, Gyostega rufimacula, Hemiphricta albicostata, Neozuga latifascia, N. strictifascia, Phrygionis fratercula, P. sororcula, Astyochia signata, Leuculopsis intermedia, Myrineco- phantes velata, Nipteria deformis, N. marginata, N. sabulosa, Scoriopsis nigrivenata, Sangalopsis mediata, Bronchelia benepicta, B. marcida, Bryoptera albiplaga, B. nigrilineata, Cymatophora divergens, C. flex- ilinia, C. viriditincta, Hymenomima exangulata, H. subnigrata, Idialcis mexicuba, Iridopsis eupepla, I. fusilinea, I. humilis, I. inve- nusta, I, memor, I. rufisparsa, I. transvisata, Pherotesia indistincta, Physocleora albibrunnea, P. cretaria, P. fulgurata, P. fuscicosta, P. nubilata, P. rectivecta, P. scutigera, P. suffusca, P. venirufata, Stenalcidia nitens, Stenotrachelys insularis, Eupileta subcesia, Hypo- metalla purpurea, H. scintillans, Lepidospora lanuginosa, Mimo- phyle parallela, Narragodes levis, Porona balteata, Neazata multi- strigaria, Sciagraphia stabilata, Semiothisa abrupta, S. atomaria, S. decorata, S. fervens, S. lapidata, S. liquata, S. multistriata, S. pluri- maculata, S. punctistriata, S. subfulva, S. sarda, Tephrina albisecta, T. confertistriga, Tephrinopsis indeterminata, Xenoecista trimaculata, Acrotomodes unicolor, Asestra lineata, Atopodes singularis, Aventiop- sis ochrea, Caberodes aspilataria, C. nexilinea, Cannagara himerodes, Crocopteryx hilaris, C. venusta, Cyclomia lilacina, C. strigifera, C. tumidilinea, Dectochilus decens, D. tincta, Eusenea semibrunnea, Entomopepla bipars, Gonorthus bilineata, Ira albirenata, Microgonia albicomma, M. cubana, M. fedaria, M. punctilinea, M. uniformis, M. vespertilio, M. xanthopepla, Mimogonodes subsignata, Mimosema dorsiiinea, Mychonia excisa, Nematocampa falsa, Neodontopera cinerea, Numia albisecta, Patalene sordida, Periclina cervina, Pero binasata, P. disjuncta, P. feda, Polla albipuncta, Pyrinia xmula, P. albilineata, P. insula, P. prefulvata, Syncrenis ustimargo.
New varieties: Anisodes aurantiata variety atridiscata, Dysephyra
albidiscata variety nigridiscata, Bassania amethystata variety extremata.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
TEXT FIGURES.
PCM MONIC TPES NMULCIVICUUO USS: \an. ao Sarees So Leeks Mas nob desc gab eeoeauee Melamistic Spelerpes maculicaudus, dorsal view -...-.:-......2-2.-2--2-+2---6 Melanistic Spelerpes maculicaudus, lateral view..-....-.......-.-------------- RODUUUS, SCHLEMUIIONGUS <2 * oe sae eee Nie Mice NO aaa moe amr hl LPN HOSEGIG EOS eke aa le Es ER UE A ee ee ee Re eee TE menOnard saisume > - 02002 L eS kc! Rep ee Pee ie Ri Sree ere ee ee ieee (SIN SIRACENA SCO DET Eas Oy 0" COTES OS ee I Sao sf oR RUE Rhinogobius nagoye...... eed i a AS I aN aS ae PRO Yo en sr A a SL er rGHMHTeHeN ONT cee mei mate 2a wee he ae UE PL a is cUnCnasan LOD Avie OL SKUs: sp poene ee aol se eee eek mianscumicnsis.* losterion view Of Skul! : 223k) 322) 2. ee Pp ao nmises De niatal view. OLgseUll. 92. ei eee eet ee i Ae Mippertecthn ot isinopaiand -Mritemnodons. 525 3o Ne eee Po Lower teeth of Sinopa, Tritemnodon, and Cynohyenodon............--------- inoponorongern, side. ylew On Skull\and jaws: 2<.2i2b..02i 2220. 2 eee Simoniworaneer aiOp viewiol Skmlle oo sic 5 ee Sy. eS Le ek Siepugrongent, interior viewror skulle 2.22 sic Sosd als ci. Ske ek Se Evolution of the upper carnassial in Creodonta and Carnivora.............-- Simepargranger, atlas viewed from above. 222.2022. .22 22s el ee. winopesgrangerl, axis vertebra, SIdG VIEW = o2ikc-2--22-e 22 ---020-22.scecee ee SiNOMi, Granger, Sixth Cervical vertebra s-2 2006 ote ss cist. a= bs sae ude. eineparorandger, Second dorsal Verebras. =<. -2.2/s225- oc 2eece 5 oleae cee ce Se Sinope grange. cisuth dorsal vertebra: 2 ..2--2922:2222.0-<2. 2...) a Sunene grangert, sixtoe lumbar vertebra... =. 2.22. 6.2.28. ste eee mivopa grangery, second catidal vertebra: <2... .<2hs2 2 os.-Seeseeioct eee eee Sinopa grangeri, seventh and sixteenth caudal vertebre..............22-2---- Sinopa grangeri, humerus, anterior and posterior views......-.....--.------- Sinopa grangeri, radius and ulna, anterior and posterior views ............--- Sinopawrangenr tore toot, dorsal views. <. 0.2222 i000. -- 1-2 cee eke sees Sinopa grangeri, femur, anterior and posterior views...........------------- Sinoga grangeri, tibia and fibula, anterior and posterior views ..........----- Nimonengranden, Lind toot, darsaloyiew.oco---o---2-e--200-enede sedan ae Differences in weight changes of two human brains --.--.....-.......------- Differences in weight changes of two bear brains. ..........-.---.........--- Changes in brain weights in 3 per cent formalin solution ..............-....- Changes in brain weights in 3 per cent formalin solution..............-...-- Changes in brain weights in 5 per cent formalin solution...............-.--- Changes in brain weights in 5 per cent formalin solution ............-...---. Changes in brain weights in 10 per cent formalin solution ..............---. E Changes in brain weights in 15 per cent formalin solution..............-.-.- Changes in brain weights in 1.030 specific gravity salt formalin solution __.... Changes in brain weights in one-half alum solution, with 5 per cent formalin. Changes in brain weights in alum solution, with 10 per cent formalin _....-.- Changes in brain weights in alum solution, with 5 per cent formalin.......-- Weight changes in sheep brains in 3 per cent formalin solution ............-- XIII .
999
223 224 226 227 99
228 251 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 279
XIV LIST GF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Weight changes in sheep brains in 5 per cent formalin solution...-----.--.-- Weight changes in sheep brains in 10 per cent formalin polation. 2 sae Weight changes in sheep brains in 15 per cent formalin solution..-.-.-.-.---- Weight changes in sheep brains in salt solution, with 5 per cent formalin ..-. Weight changes in sheep brains in 1.030 specific gravity formalin salt solution. - Weight changes in sheep brains in 1.015 specific gravity salt formalin solution. Weight changes in sheep brains in alum solution, with 5 per cent of formalin. Weight changes in sheep brains in one-third alum solution, with 5 per cent of
formalin s2.¢ 202 2.6.-4 2s <5 dose cee ag eee eee ee See ae Weight changes in sheep brains in one-fifth alum solution, with 5 per cent of
formalin 2.25.2 2d eis Hee eee eee eee eee Weight changes in sheep brains in one-third alum solution, with sodium
chloride to 1.030 specific gravity, and 10 per cent formalin ..........------ Weight changes in sheep brains in one-third saturated solution of alum, with sodium chloride to 1.030 specific gravity, and 5 per cent formalin ........-.-- Weight changes in sheep brains in solution of 80 parts of 95 per cent alcohol and.\20 parts 5 per cent: formalin. > A201. aaee eel See oe ae ee Weight changes in sheep brains in solution of 65 parts of 95 per cent alcohol and 35 parts 3 per cent formalin. 3.- = ojacs Seen eas ee ee
Weight changes in sheep brains in sodium acetate, sodium chloride, alcohol, and: tonmalimsolution® © -.225" 3s... 52 aaro- Seer
Weight changes in 15 different preservatives containing formalin .......----- Dentition of Plethodon sherman: > 2~.525.2ea2ae Sout ee eee Dentition ofPlethodon wneusiss= 25.225 ae sete = tee ee eee Dentition of -Plethodon jordantl..o=.55 soa 5s5 ee ee a eee Upper side of right forefoot of Plethodon shermani.....---------------------- Under side of right hind foot of Plethodon shermant .._-.---.--=------------- Under side of right-hind foot of Plethodon:eneus.. o.—.- 2 seas eee ne ee Turpitia. grandis. Lateral yiew of type. 2 2..< = seen Turpilia grandis. Dorsal view of head and pronotum....--..--------------- Ischnomela pulchripennis. Dorsal view of type--.-----------=----------<-<- Ischnomela pulchripennis. Lateral view of type...-.-~-..:--+-.2----------< Mimetica crenulaia. Lateraliwiew ol-type---4-22-2-- - san=2 sss eee Mimetica crenulata.. Dorsal view of pronotum of type.......---------------- Symphyloxiphus magnificum. Lateral view of type......---.---------------- Symphyloxiphus magnificum. Dorsal view of type. .-.--..------------------- Cupsilurusi0g00= 22282 ase ease ee See cee eee eee ee Conythnouchthys tOmue ces 52 Sasol oe mle et ee eee ere re eee ATH EriNAG: MOTI aro co 2e oe bss ck een eee Eee ee re ee ee ee eee AMIG NOD 2o2 bas ois eS tS a ee ee eee Pyiota abet. 2is2c 2222 ce ee ase Sone oe eee ee Rhinogobius:hadropterus = sos = 3 2a a ee ee ee Enneapleryouus etheostoma 25-2 = = ae aaa =e ee ee Ghristicens flammeus: <8) 2020.2 sa el se ae en ee ee ee Blernwis Cuines <. 22.5 5.2 sashes Se Se ee ee ee Salarrds CnOswme . — aia. Ss SSE cw Sasi ee ee ee Salarias andersont' : 2.3.5 soot Sec dee ee ieee ee eee ee Salarias taneqaswie - . 22.25 <cinoe See ee Se See Oe ee eee Petroscirtes loxozonus ...--- - SPs. ca kbd at Kocaeli ees Eimbolichthys Miiswkurt <2 < cee acces cee ae bee aoe eee ee Ammodytes persondtus @ o<2 5-6 oS. eck Sas Se cae ee | eee es ae Venation.of Agnippe ewpneellas. o.. ae Sean ee ee ee eee ee Venation.of Numata. bipunctella .=: 2 2c. sje See ee eee ee eee ee ee Venation of Hyvipne pollosielia= =... s=5.2 ade. cose s6 See e eee
Venation of Recurvariu elachistella
298
299
300 306 560 560 560 562 562 562 597 598 599 600 602 602 GO4 GO4 695 696 697 698 699 700 700 701 702
eyo (Uo
703 705 705 716 718 123 724 725 726
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. XV ; Page Pte C LOM MNNOLOMICHO o.\- J2- ote ee asco a6 wo oscilla ce wine oe wedeeccen 727 EEC MELO TT MUNOTICRC Grae as ee ne ee a nae sell ences ones 730 BeEME ARON “MOU MURGCUPETELO =< 21. oes a own a dwn eee cadens oases ee cee- fal Beene TORT ONMENUIMMCIIC = ea oa oooh Se anna k wo ee ee nee se sec eee ccc ecce 733 Beason oclomornpna operosela, Male = —-..2--2 52 .22..0..2 5-222 beet ee- 734 Venation of Setomorpha operosella, female............-..--------- aide ei Pe 735 Diagrammatic comparison of skulls of Sus barbatus and Sus gargantua.....-.-- 743 The distorted specimen of Pentremites maccalliei slightly tilted. ......22.222... 759 Basal view of Pentremites maccalliei in outline, restored to probable normalform. 760 Section of Pentremites maccalliei across an ambulacral furrow.........-------- 760 Co GH COALS SUE COOSA! AU) GPRS BT ae i Be ah al eR) EC 765 PeMICHORUS SIMONST toe ne Wea. Os lees weet eel. A aeee Pepa taney es Bare soe ey Si 765 ET Neel MOUSE we aie toe hes ee Ie yh OME oo he ee wae SSS 767 Mee MOL ne Me coe aoee oe Se. hoe! fake wo SE SSL yols es oes 767 Ty IEICE TCO ELT ICT) 7A MN Af ae pe ee 774 0 EASES REIRCT IIT EE SSIS 9 TE a SO eget > Gen a ae ea, ae a 782 2 ISIS GTS ETNA ToS ee AR EG Sy ADI de a a 782 EE OnE aC ACS S ene Oni ela mete Ment eS eo ai ni SP sede 785 Sree OOM CUDMONES Sx tet ee i caty wees Se. Coe ete ee SEE Sone ee ee ee 789 Renner Ree Sern eke ge ee Aa ewe, needs Shak Seng dete ks Se 789 eee MgO ree et ere nee Vee! eS ees Sie. Soe ae boone beh See 815 LSAT SIGINT Sg (01 SO en es A ee, 83 ren ice Pe MT ier eae eae Aes ee Kee ed he oe kasinins dno 842 col ORUSY HOTS AR EE oe 2 a GSR ae Sr 843 Re CTEM CR UM teat ae cee eens pale a eye ee Re ee ME a SS tes eke ke 82 ieee it Te OUI TCENSt oe Sa ee oe oe oe Seale ee Se le Beoe aed Conse ose See 853 EEO Eee a ae Eee eel oe te en Bae OEE PLATES. Facing page. fee) neces Ol OTOGvician -BEVOZO® . 2-22 25-25. saves obi ea. oss. s eed 66 Panes Lypen ol Ordovigian Bry O20a: Sa. sat see). ooo dns ore ie 66 Pep acc Dee Or OrdOviGiilelst VO7ZON, 5 oom aces. Reason a de 66 MOS Nes OL ORIG VIC Anon VOZORe soe h 58S s/o. Rates. nce. cass ewe 66 Da esa pes Ol. OTGOviclinebryOZOde 2. aaiae eee kee ose ce bse esa ek ce 66 Darcey pester Ordovician brvyozGa e2 st): 22 os echo d eso see e eee Dee 66 ¢. James types of Ordovician and Silurian Bryozoa.........2.......- pas aes 66 8. Larvee and young adults of Spelerpes maculicaudus............-.-.------- 84 9; Juarvee and young adults of Spelerpes maculicaudus.........----..--.-=--s 84 RC TPere MIRE IS PICHON ES TITCUOMUAUS = Oe ee alee ei eee ee be opetele 84 ime eroerinrer tine OMLTICOOA) se a Sete oss ee Re Se Sek cee eed 164 eRe Newaapanesesblymenoplena ... sts +. 56 lS. s2iaci io 2265s Sselooecee cedecu 202 eee em apamenc, Sty IMeCNOPLeTa 4.5 6-2 o8-..<see.ssese- esc tance teed ese 202 eet ewad oamese blyIMeENO tera oa. fee se sac a Se soce cate ~ = eee Sede esas 202 Pew panics. Hymenoptera. .2.tt .sa4ss2s e222 -.- 2 -de0d Seeee bees ee ewe 202 16. Sinopa grangeri, type skeleton ....-. eo Ae cee eter de Stas Meera alana 204 eesoluses of the Wamily Pyramidellidw@sy.|..2..0225-22-+--.+----2-5---- 370 18. Mollusks of the Family Pyramidellidee............-. 2 SIE he ae eee 37 fee Molmisks of the Family Pyramidellide2/...22.- °\ .-1-...22-22.-2..-2- 370 ae Mollusis'ot the Wamily Pyramidellide.-.....:.u.22..-...2---2.--22-- 370 aie Vollusks of th@@amily Pyramidellidee.......2.2.-.----2-:.---------2-- 37C aoe Mollasicsof the Family Pyramidellide.......2.:.:.....-.-...2...2--2- 37 foe Molusksor the wlinily Pyramidellidse:.......2...22..2.-.224.---+2--- 370 ee Mollusks, of the Family Pyramidellidee......2...--.2.2.2-+-..-. eee eee 370 PeMolnaies of the Family Pyramidellidx--.....2....-:-2-4/-.-+--2-2.---- 37 ; >
eV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
or C1
“I
Or o 2)
or 2D co
oo =I ¢
Facing
page,
Mollusks of the Family Pyramidellidse- 22-32-52 = 325. ere eon Pearly fresh-water mussels .-.-. 32. So@e2-e esa oe eS ee oe eee 396 Pearly fresh-water mussels .2 2222222 csec ewaseee a ee ie ee 396 “Pearly fresh-water mussels 2.3 .22.cl0 22 5s nee eae a ee ae 596 Skeleton of Rhamphorhynchus gemmingi.....-----------------------+---- 612 Skeletonsof Rhamphorhiynchus genuningy . = sseeee sae eee 612 Lateral view of the skull ef Triceratops calicornis -.-..------------------- 612 Anterior view of the skull of Diceratops hatcheri.......------+---:------- 612 Lateral view of the skull of Diceratops hatchert .......------------------- 612 Mounted: skeleton of mastodom™= = 2-6 2.) a-s see eee 612 Paraguayan Acrididze 3 >... tacc Recah Se See = ae ae ee ee 694 Paraguayan Acrididse’= 2.2) .\--ise 2d neces eee 694 Rarasuayan Acrididee:.. 2264 aoe fas so ae ee ee 694 Sus: Garbatuss.2 = 55-5 oe ioe eee a ee te See eee eee 758 SUB OUe 2a ann So OR Se Senha Soe 2 oo ne Oe a 758 WSUS GANGONUULG «= 2 Pct ce elas no ciae Se Cicer e Sere = ae See een 758 ISS) DARD GUIS wenn Secale 2 ee a Te ee 758 SUS) OU se 3 Ss Sa Tg eS hae SE Eee ee ce eee 758 SUS GAT GANIMG a2 san Ss So acc One Se aE a ee 758 Susbarbatus a. f2k et ee ee a i ee ee 758 SUS 08 svete 5S Gorham HOS Shecwt he 2 IE Ee a AS eee 758 Sus Gargantua: 5. «soe - 28 2g. 2 ete eo ae eae 758 SUSHOANOOIUS.<. WSUS GORGANULG =. Heise aaa eee ee es SUS CONDaiUss — SUS*OOTO CID: GSU SiO Use ee =e ae ee eel eee eee 758 SUSGOrganludsc. fscah soos Ses eee oe Ie eee eee eee 758 ISUS DON OCU Sis Sark Oe ence oom ee ie ee re ee 758 SUS Ol casas cn ee a1S oe min oe alee Ad oe ote eee ae 758 SUSICTISLAIUS Ene veo SSSR Bs ok ee Seo ee Noe Bee ene 758 SUB CTUSLQLUBSS SS eic ors woes Se ne Stee SSR ea acre ee ee 758 Sus qubattis 55265: pe ease ok See ae a eee cane Tee Sus (ubatus 23.2 2. 2 See oe oo cee ed ee a eee 758 Sus penmsilaris. ‘Sus: peninsuloris? 22 Sse. eee eee 758 ISIS CIMSLOLUS. SUS MUDGLUS. | SUSAUULCUILS == = ee eee ee 758 Susicristaius: — Sus 7ubatus- oa Sane ee eee eee eee 758 Susbabt. .SusivhMons) «<2 ses. 2 ats Soe ee ee ee ee eee 758 Susibabi: > Sus rhioniscn on2 $.0 sk SS ee ee eee 758 Susmiadensis: Susiandamanensise--s—- - >= oes eee ee eee 758 Sumniadensiss \iSUs 0t..22-- oo 2 cSt eee ee ee Cee Oe ee 758 Sus vlttatus. Susimiadensis.. (Sus riionis: 3... 2-2 se 2 ee eee eee 758 thamdia gilli. Paralabrax callaensis. Pomadasis burro...--..----------- 800 Dopdixodon freminvillei. Doydixodon laevifrons. Sciaena gilberti.....----- 800 hungia japonica, New Species = 22-2 4e.c- = seer ee ee eee 832 Hungia samboangensis, New SPeCles|-.-= ssesse eee eee eae eee 832 Fungia samboangensis. Fungut concinna <2. ..5= 2226-55 eee eee 832 Hungiaigranulosa ISltunzingers 24... eee se aes eee ee ee 832 Fungia granulosa Ki lunzinger.. = - esses ote = ee eee eee 832 Bungia madagascarensis, New SpeCles) =. 2—-2-a.se ee eee eee eee eee 832 Fungia maddgascaren#is, New SpeCles . ac. 4-5 so ee eee eee eee 832 Fungia samboangensis. Fungia granulosa. Fungia madagascarensis..-...- £32 Humerus of Leptophoca lenis and of Phoca greenlandica.........-------- 840 Bones of Leptophoca lenis and of a fossil sirenian.....-..---..---------- 840 Coenocyactus boworsi and Astrangia crasiliensis .......------------------- 850
Astrangia TathhUnt <0 0nd dsuta. Lae ee eee se ane uae ses S ek eer 850
A STUDY OF THE JAMES TYPES OF ORDOVICIAN AND SILURIAN BRYOZOA.
By Ray 8S. BassuEr,
Assistant Curator, Department of Geology.
Mr. U. P. James was one of the pioneer students of the splendid fauna of the Cincinnati group, and at various times between 1871 and 1883 printed the results of his studies in private and other publications. In these papers Mr. James described a considerable number of bryo- zoa as well as of other classes of fossils, but almost invariably failed to illustrate his species. Some of his names were recognized by sub- sequent writers who redescribed and illustrated his species, but the majority are still as left by their author.
Some years ago the James collection became a part of the paleon- tologic collection of Walker Museum of the University of Chicago, and its types are now accessible for study. The present paper is devoted to a consideration of the bryozoa described by Mr. James, and is based not only upon the James types but also upon numerous authen- tic specimens received from Mr. James and now in the collection of the U. S. National Museum. However, most of these bryozoa (Tre- postomata) he referred to the Tabulate corals, others (Cryptostomata) to the bryozoa, while a few were placed with Stromatopora and the sponges. It is hoped that the conclusions reached by the present writer in regard to the validity and synonymy of the various species are fair to both Mr. James and subsequent workers along the same lime.
The writer is under obligations to Professors Chamberlin and Weller for the opportunity of studying this portion of the James collection, and especial thanks are due Professor Weller for his help and advice at various times.
INTRODUCTION.
The early systematic work in all branches of natural history is obvi- ously more or less faulty when compared with the standard obtaining to-day, just as many imperfections will no doubt be found by the future student in the results of present researches. This is especially true in regard to paleontologic work, where the student’s observations
_ = oo -
PROCEEDINGS U.S. NATIONAL Museum, VOL. XXX—No. 1442. Proc. N. M. vol. xxx—06——1 1
| | 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX. |
are limited to more or less imperfect remains, and when, in addition, .aclass such as the Bryozoa requires the microscopic as well as the
macroscopic characters for the delimitation of species, it is not aston-
ishing that pioneer work in such a field should be quite imperfect.
All of the Paleozoic systems of the North American continent, with the exception of the Cambrian, afford a large number of Bryozoa which have essentially the same general macroscopic features, but which show their specific differences mainly upon microscopic exami- nation. This applies particularly to species of the order Treposto- mata, or, as they have been commonly designated, the Monticulipo- roids. Species of Trepostomata as well as of the other orders were described from the external characters alone until 1876, when Doctor Nicholson published his paper Notes on the Paleozoic Corals of the State of Ohio.” Here for the first time the internal characters were studied and illustrated by means of thin sections. This and succeed- ing articles by the same writer pointed out the way for the accurate study of the monticuliporoids. Previous to the date mentioned, names | such as Chaetetes lycoperdon or C. petropolitanus were applied to almost any massive paleozoic bryozoan, while Stenopora fibrosa was a convenient designation for ramose forms irrespective of their geolog- ical horizon. ‘To-day the characterization of any new species, particu- larly of the Trepostomata, is incomplete without the description and illustration of the internal structure as well as the external features. Fortunately some of the species hitherto described without a study of their internal parts have such well-marked external characters that, with good illustrations of the latter, it has been possible to identify the species. The generic characters being in nearly all cases internal, it remained for subsequent authors to properly place such species.
Several authors have described a considerable number of bryozoa almost entirely without illustration. Ina few cases the specific charac- ters are so salient that little trouble is experienced in identifying the species, but in the majority of cases it is impossible to do so without an examination of the original types. To determine the status of as many as possible of these more or less obscure species, and thus to clear up the literature of the subject, has been the endeavor of the writer for some years. In the identification and final recognition of such species, especially when the synonymy, if any, is in question, one’s personal equation is so liable to enter that considerable care is necessary in order to obtain unbiased results. The writer has tried to eliminate this element in work of this character by adhering strictly to the rules of nomenclature. The Code of Nomenclature adopted by the American Ornithologists Union (New York, 1892) contains prob- ably the best and most recent expression of the laws upon this subject, and the rules employed in this paper and cited later are quoted from this valuable work.
4Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (4), X VIII, 1876, pp. 85-94, pl. v.
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. ' 3
In the application of the these rules to the James types, many dif- ficulties are encountered. These occur especially in those cases where the specimens marked as types fail to conform in important respects with the original descriptions. In many cases it seems almost certain that the specimens now marked as the types were not the ones origi- nally used by the elder James in describing the species. Furthermore, it is probable that the selection of the types occurred subsequently, possibly when the younger James joined his father in the study of
these organisms. As it is now impossible to determine this point, and as labels in the elder James’s handwriting in every case accompany the type, we must accept the specimens thus marked as the original types and apply the rules to these.
The study of these type specimens has forcibly impressed upon the writer the caution that ought to be observed by cataloguers in record- ing literature of this kind. In 19004 Nickles and the writer recognized a number of the poorly defined James species, placing well defined and figured species of other authors as synonyms. These identifications were based mainly upon ‘‘authentic” specimens one of them had received from Mr. U. P. James, and also partly upon their interpre- tation of his descriptions. Unfortunately this interpretation and the authentic specimens do not in a number of cases agree with. the types, thus making a revision of the synonymy necessary.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
The paleontological publications of Mr. U. P. James commenced in 1871 with the issue of a Catalogue of Lower Silurian Fossils. In this pamphlet a few species now referred to the bryozoa were named but not described. Inasecondand enlarged edition of the catalogue, which appeared in 1875, these and other species were briefly described. In July, 1878, appeared the first number of the Paleontologist, a private publication devoted to geology and paleontology. Seven numbers, consisting altogether of 53 pages and 2 plates, were issued at irregular intervals from 1878 to 1883. The descriptions in this paper are often clear and concise, and have the additional advantage of including accurate measurements, as wellas a statement of the horizon, locality, and range of the species. Inthe treatment of the monticuliporoids, in Nos. 6 and 7, more or less detailed accounts of their internal structure are given. Five additional species of this class are described by Mr. James in articles appearing in the Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History. Many of the descriptions in the foregoing arti- cles are, as mentioned before, clear and concise and show that their author was not only an acute observer, but also appreciated the value of both external and internal characters in the discrimination of species belonging to this group.
The series of papers by U. P. James and Joseph F. James, listed
@Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900.
4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL, XXX.
below and entitled On the Monticuliporoid Corals of the Cincinnati Group, witha Critical Revision of the Species, contains a treatment of the monticuliporoids that is in marked contrast to the previous work of the elder James. The form and surface characters of the zoarium are now considered the diagnostic points, and the species and synonymy are arranged accordingly. Joseph F. James continues the same style of work in his Manual of the Paleontoloyy of the Cincinnati Group, but his death left this series of articles unfinished.
The following list and remarks upon the papers of both U. P. and J. F. James relate only to those which deal in part or wholly with bryozoa or organisms which have proved to be bryozoa.,
U. P. JAMES.
1. CaraLoaurE oF Lower Sruurtan Fossius, Cincinnati Group, Crncrnnatt, 1871.
Under the heading of Zoophyta lists the Bryozoa of the Cincinnati group.
2. Apprrions ro CaTALoGuE oF Lower SILuRIAN Fosstis, Cincinnati Group, Crn- CINNATI, 1873. 7
Lists several additional species of Bryozoa and corrects some of the earlier names.
3. CATALOGUE OF LOWER SILURIAN FossILs oF THE CINCINNATI GROUP, WITH DeE- SCRIPTIONS OF SOME New SPECIES OF CORALS AND PoLyzoa, CINCINNATI, 1875.
This is an enlarged edition of the catalogue of 1871 and contains in addition an introduction wherein the following new species of Bryozoa are described: Chextetes ? calycula, C. clavacoideus, C. cincinnatiensis, C.? onealli, Ceramo- pora nicholsoni, Ptilodictya acuminata, and Alecto nevilis.
4. THe Pavronto.oaist, No. 1, pp. 1-8, Cincinnati, Juny 2, 1878.
Contains descriptions of the following species of Bryozoa: Chextetes crustulatus, C. sp.? (meeki suggested), C. sp.? (varians proposed), Fistulipora ? multi- pora, Helopora dendrina, H. tenuis, H. meeki, H. parvula, H. approximata, Ptilodictya hilli, P. plumaria, P. flecuosa, P. granulosa, P. paralella, Cera- mopora ? beani, C.? trregularis, C. alternata, C. concentrica, Hippothoa deli- catula, Ptilodictya fimbriata and P. sp.? (welshi proposed).
5. THE PaLEonroLoaist, No. 2, pp. 9-16, CINcINNATI, SEPT. 14, 1878.
The following species of Bryozoa are described: Chatetes Lycoperdon, C. petro- politanus, C. turbinatum, Callopora milfordensis, Ceramopora whitei, and C. radians.
6. THE PaLeonto.oaist, No. 3, pp. 17-24, Crncrnnati, JAN. 15, 1879.
Describes the following species which are now regarded as Bryozoa: Stroma- topora ? lichenoides, Fistulipora siluriana, Chetetes minutus, C. crustulatus, C. lycopodites, Ptilodictya nodosa, P. platyphylla, Escharina distorta, and Sagenella striata.
. THE PaLEonroLoaist, No. 4, pp. 25-32, Cincinnati, Juty 10, 1878.
No Bryozoa are described in this number, which includes a ‘‘SSupplement to Catalogue of Lower Silurian Fossils of the Cincinnati Group.’”’ Under the headings of Polypi and Polyzoa, this supplement lists the species of Bryo- zoa and in some cases indicates the synonymy.
8. THr PALEoNTOLOGIST, No. 5, pr. 33-44, CrncrnNATI, JUNE 10, 1881.
In this number the following Bryozoa are described: Monticulipora (Chx- tetes) whitfieldi, M. (C.) meeki, M. (C.) varians, Dekayia maculata, Ptilodictya antiqua, P. cleavelandi, P. kentuckyensis, P. clintonensis, P. ? cincinnatiensis, P. grahami, P. dubia, and P. teres.
~I
4
*
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 5
9. THe Patronrotoaist, No. 6, pp. 45-56, CINncINNATI, Serr. 12, 1882.
This number is devoted entirely to species at Monticulipora and contains descriptions of both the external and internal features of the following: Monticulipora ( Heterotrypa) clintonensis, M. (H.) circularis, M. (H.) onealli ? var. communis, M. (H. ?) eccentrica, M. (H.) winchelli, M. (H. ?) cleave- landi, M. (Monotrypa) wortheni, M. (M.) welchi, M. (M. ?) subfusiformis, and M. (M.) dychei.
10. Tar PaLEontoxoaist, No. 7, pp. 57-59, pis. I, U, CINCINNATI, APRIL 16, 1883.
Describes Monticulipora kentuckensis and Helopora harrisi.
The plates contain rough sketches of the Bryozoa described in this and the pre- ceding number of the Paleontologist. These figures are of little or no value in the identification of the species.
All of the above references are to pamphlets published privately by Mr. James. Some writers, notably Mr. S. A. Miller in his North American Geology and Paleontology, have ignored these pamphlets altogether, mainly because of their obscure mode of publication, but also because many of the species are *‘not defined so as to be recog- nized.” Other writers have adopted some of Mr. James’s specific names and rejected others, but inasmuch as all of these papers fill the requirements of publication, there is no reason for ignoring the work as a whole, no matter how difficult it may be to recognize the species described. The A. O. U. Code of Nomenclature states that ‘* Publi- cation consists in the public sale or distribution of printed matter, books, pamphlets, or plates” (Canon XLVI), but recommends that authors avoid publishing in obscure pamphlets of limited circulation. The Paleontologist, although certainly of the class to be avoided, must be recognized under the rules since copies were distributed to some extent by the author, and were also placed on sale at his book store in Cincinnati, where they may still be obtained.
The following references are to articles appearing in the proceed- ings of a well established scientific society, and hence there is no ques- tion in regard to their recognition as publications:
11. Descriptions oF THREE SpEcIES OF Fosstts. JouRNAL Cincinnati Soctety Natu- RAL History, VII, 1884, pp. 21-24.
Describes and gives fairly good illustrations of two bryozoa, Fistulipora oweni and Ceramopora ? beani.
12. Descriptions oF Four New Species or Fossits FROM THE CINCINNATI GROUP. JouRNAL Cincinnati Socrety Natura History, VII, 1884, pp. 137-139, pu. vir.
Describes and illustrates two new bryozoa, Monticulipora ohioensis and M.
falesi. The article also includes descriptions and figures-of more or less
weathered examples of Ceramoporella, which are referred to, Stromatopora under the name of S. tubularis and S. Ludlowensis.
U. P. JAMES AND J. F. JAMES.
13. ON THE MonTICULIPOROID CORALS OF THE CINCINNATE GROUP, WITH A CRITICAL REVISION OF THE SPECIES. JOURNAL CINCINNATI Soctery or Naturat Hisrory, MAND OM.
Parr 1, VotuME X, 1887, pr. 118-141. Part 2, VotuME X, 1888, pp. 158-184, PL. 1 Part 3, VotuME XI, 1888, pr. 15-47, PL. 1.
The three installments by U. P. and J. F. James noted above were bound together and distributed by their authors under the title of
,
_
6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL, XXX.
Monograph of the Monticuliporoid Corals of the Cincinnati Group. In this monograph external characters alone are employed in dis tinguishing species, and as a result the specific synonomy given isa revelation. The various monticuliporoid genera and subgenera pro- posed, particularly those by Nicholson and Ulrich, are made synonyms of either Hall’s Ceramopora or D’Orbigny’s MMonticulipora. Only Dekayia Edwards and Haime, Constellaria Dana, and Fistulipora McCoy are recognized, and these only as subgenera of MWonticulipora. The correct placing of some of the synonymous genera seems to have troubled the authors. For example, Crepipora and Chiloporella are first placed as synonyms of Ceramopora and Monticulipora, respect- ively, but in the last installment the authors decide that the subgenus Fistulipora is the proper name with which to make them synonymous. However, even this is not final, as later in the same paper Crepipora is again made a synonym ot Ceramopora.
The synonymy of species is on a par with the generic work, as may be illustrated by one of many examples. Callopora cincinnatiensis and Chiloporella flabellata of Ulrich are considered synonyms of J/onticu- lipora nicholsoni James, the two synonyms being founded, according to James and James, ‘* upon slightly worn specimens.” It happens, however, that Callopora cincinnatiensis is founded upon well-pre- served specimens of Loclema occidens (Hall and Whitfield) from the Upper Devonian of Iowa, and, as admitted by Ulrich,“ was erroneously recorded as coming from Cincinnati.
No new species are described in these articles, but many of the James species are figured on the two plates. These figures, especially the illustrations of the surface characters of the various species, are misleading and in many cases are quite unlike the specimens they are said to represent. For example, contiguous angular, polygonal zocecia, such as are exhibited by the specimens called Monticulipora turbinata, are represented as more or less irregularly rounded and separated by a space of varying diameter, with here and there a rounded mesopore interpolated.
This series of articles appearing several years after Nicholson’s excel- lent volume The Genus Monticulipora, can not be excused on the ground of pioneer work. Instead of marking an advance upon work in the Paleontologist, the monograph is very much inferior to the earlier publication, and instead of being the promised aid to the stu- dent, the articles are positively confusing and detrimental to progress.
JOSEPH F. JAMES.
14. MANUAL OF THE PALEONTOLOGY OF THE CINCINNATI GROUP. JOURNAL CINCINNATI Socrety oF Natura History, X V-X VIII.
VoLuME XV, 1893, pp. 144-159.
VotumE XVI, 1894, pp. 178-208,
VotumE XVIII, 1895, pr. 67-88.
VotumME XVIII, 1896, pre. 115-140.
a Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 427.
=
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. (é
—s
This series of articles differs from the preceding in its less critical tone and iconoclastic spirit. The synonymy is considerably modified, more species now being recognized as valid. The same specific group- ing according to zoarial growth is followed, but the author has appar- ently modified his views as to the value of internal characters, since these are now noted in his descriptions. The work was left unfinished by the death of the author.
LAWS OF NOMENCLATURE.
In order to avoid repetition in the descriptive portion of this work, the writer has selected and quoted below such laws of nomenclature as will be found to have special application to the James species. These are given as published in the Code of Nomenclature adopted by the American Ornithologists’ Union (New York, 1892), and it is believed that the canons quoted cover all the cases afforded by the James bryozoan species.
OF THE RETENTION OF NAMES. -
Canon XX XII.—A nomen nudum, generic or specific, may be adopted by a subse- quent author, but the name takes both its date and authority from the time when, and from the author by whom, the name becomes clothed with significance by being properly defined and published.
OF THE REJECTION OF NAMES,
Canon XX XIV.—A nomen nudum is to be rejected as haying no status in nomen- clature. .
Canon XXX VI.—A name resting solely on an inadequate diagnosis is to be rejected, on the ground that it is indeterminable and therefore not properly defined.
Canon X XX TX.—A name which has never been clearly defined in some published work is to be changed for the earliest name by which the object shall have been so defined, if such name exist; otherwise a new name is to be provided, or the old name may be properly defined and retained, its priority and authority to date from the time and author so defining it.
OF THE DEFINITION OF NAMES.
Canon X LITI.—The basis of a specific or subspecific name is either (1) an identifi- able published description, or (2) a recognizable published figure or plate, or (3) the original type specimen or specimens, absolutely identified as the type or types of the species or subspecies in question; but in no case is a type specimen to be accepted as the basis of a specific or subspecific name, when it radically disagrees with or is con- tradictory to the characters given in the diagram or description based upon it.
Canon XLV.—Absolute identification is requisite in order to displace a modern current name by an older obscure one.
OF THE PUBLICATION OF NAMES.
Canon XL VII.—Publication consists in the public sale or distribution of printed matter—books, pamphlets, or plates.
& PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX,
CLASSIFICATION OF ORDOVICIAN STRATA IN THE VICINITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO.
Various classifications of the Cincinnati rocks have been proposed from time to time, but reference to most of these is unnecessary, especially since the subject was ably discussed and reviewed by Nick- les in 1902.¢ At that time this author indicated all of the divisions of the Cincinnatian series, but applied names only to the various beds of the Lorraine. Ina subsequent paper’ he named the divisions of the Richmond group. More recently Foerste “ has proposed several new names as well as a few changes.
The classification presented below is one now in preparation for publication by Mr. E. O. Ulrich of the U. 5. Geological Survey and the writer, and will be employed for mapping purposes in the Cincin- natiarea. As the publication of this article may be delayed, departures from the classifications of Nickles and Foerste, and the new terms are briefly discussed below. The thickness of the various divisions is indicated by giving their range in height above low-water mark-in the Ohio River, starting at a point where the lowest beds are exposed, namely, at West Covington, or at Bromley, Kentucky, and suppos- ing that the rocks are horizontal. The heights mentioned are thus only relative and this method is introduced here mainly because it was employed by Mr. James and most of the other Cincinnati paleontolo- gists in locating the horizon of their fossils.
Approxi- mate height Formation : in feet above (mapable units). Members. low-water mark in Ohio
River. Naludaye a eases ens ee Meee Ray Sasa ae = 665-700 Whitewater: 6323222. os soe eee ee ee 625-665 a {Richmond group - .------ Libertys sso. = Sc245 oe eae eee 590-625 -s | ¥aynesvte oe ea beet eee ee 540-590 i Arnheim | 2242 4-12 Se echt cee eee ae 460-540 = Mt. Aubums.224.0: 425-460 = MeMillan.._.....---- [Corrie Pian see 390-425 A Bellevues st. = oe 375-390 g Hin ctedy eit ect lmede SPaLMOUNES coe = 325-375 © (Covington group -.-..--- \Mt; Hoperesiis05 280-325 MecMickenes. 222 =" 220-280 Bdets 2322.0 05 sees is NUNN aVec: 1 We eee re ee 100-220 ECONOMY sesso 50-100 Utica." 22 5= eeeeeee Fulltion2 ans ee 45— 50 es eG Ree fPoint Pleasant: se 5s-seeoeeee ae eae 30— 45 Mire SoC A ee (Bromley o23.5.65heeeede ee ee 0- 30
«The Geology of Cincinnati. Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XX, 1902, pp. 49-101.
b American Geologist, XX XII, 1908, pp. 202-218.
Science, XXII, 1905, No. 558, pp. 149-152.
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 9
Bromley. —This name is applied to the series of drab to dark blue shales underlying the Trenton limestone outcropping along the Ohio River bank opposite Cincinnati. These shales are about 30 feet in thickness and are well exposed along the river just below Bromley, Kentucky. The characteristic fossils are trilobite remains and form of Dalmanella, both of which occur in comparative abundance, although other fossils are rare. This division is probably the equiva- lent of the Hermitage formation of Tennessee.
Point Pleasant.—The strata to which this name was applied by Prof. Edward Orton are represented in the vicinity of Cincinnati by the Trenton limestone overlying the Bromley shales. Here, on account of erosion preceding the deposition of the Utica, these limestones are not more than 25 feet thick, but at the type locality a considerable thickness is added to the top. Aridotrypa briareus is the most charac- teristic fossil, and the strata represent probably the whole of the Bigby and Cattiey: of Tennessee.
Covington group.—This term is proposed to embrace all the strata in the Cincinnati area from the top of the Trenton to the base of the Richmond. It thus includes the Utica and Lorraine of previous authors.
Fulton.—The typical Utica is represented along the Ohio River by only a few feet (seldom more than 5) of dark gray or drab colored shales which contrast very distinctly with the overlying Eden shales. These strata are well exhibited along the Ohio River bank at Fulton, the old name for the eastern part of Cincinnati. Triarthrus beck, Leptobolus insignis, graptolites and other typical Utica fossils are abundant.
Eden.—The Eden shales of Professor Orton may be divided into three members well marked both faunally and lithologically. Hitherto these have been indicated by the divisions lower, middle, and upper Utica, with the exception that the lower Utica has included both the mem- bers here called Economy and Fulton.
Economy.—This term, the old name of the village now known as West Covington, Kentucky, is applied to the lower division of the Eden. About 50 feet of blue shales and limestones comprise this member, which is distinguished faunally by a large number of bryozoa, the characteristic species being Coeloclema commune, Crepipora venusta, and several forms of Aspidopora.
Southgate.—The middle Eden beds are well exposed just south of Newport and Covington, Kentucky, particularly in the vicinity of Southgate, so that the latter name may be employed to distinguish them. This division consists of about 120 feet of blue to yellow shales, with fewer limestones than in the rest of the Eden. The lower beds of this member contain a considerable number of gastropods and pele- eypods, while throughout the entire member, Ctenobolbina ciliata,
10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
Aspidopora eccentrica, ad Butostona james’ are particularly abundant and characteristic.
Mc Micken.—The upper third of the Eden consists of about 60 feet of highly calcareous and extremely fossiliferous shales and limestones holding the bryozoan. Dekuyella ulricht in great abundance. Good exposures occur along MeMicken avenue, Cincinnati, whence the name for the division.
Fairview.—Nickles’s divisions of Mount Hope and Fairmount, although useful for detailed work, are so closely related faunally and distinguished with such difficulty that for mapping purposes the term Fairview, from Fairview Heights at Cincinnati, is here proposed to embrace both. The Fairview formation is about 100 feet thick, and is the equivalent in part of the ** Hill quarry beds” of Professor Orton.
MeMillan.—The Bellevue, Corryville, and Mt. Auburn members are closely related and not of sufficient importance to be mapped separately. The three are here recognized as members of the new formation, the McMillan, from the street of that name at Cincinnati, along which the 85 feet of strata comprising this formation are fairly well exposed.
Arnheim.—Nickles’s term Warren being preoccupied, the new name Arnheim was proposed“ for this division, which here is considered a part of the Richmond group rather than of the Lorraine, as hitherto placed. Excellent exposures of these strata are found in the vicinity of Oregonia and Lebanon, Ohio.
DISCUSSION OF SPECIES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
In many cases the James type lots contain such a variety of speci- mens, or are so involved in other respects, that it has seemed best to discuss in alphabetical order not only Mr. James’s own species but also those of which his forms have proved to be synonyms. In order to facilitate reference to any particular form, this discussion of species is followed by an index. The synonymy of some of the species is so extended that for the sake of space, only that part of it essential to this paper is given. The complete synonymy is presented in Bulletin U.S. Geological Survey, No. 173.
ALECTO NEXILIS James. Alecto nexilis JAMES, Intr. Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1875, p. 3.
Original description.—** Polyzoary attached to branches of coral, consisting of thread-like tubes anastomosing closely, resembling’ fine network, with 7 or 8 meshes in the space of a line; the little circular mouths are raised and at irregular distances, varying from one-eighth to one-sixteenth of a line apart.
“ Foerste, Science, X XII, 1905, No. 553, p. 151.
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. ata
uneven, cylindrical branched coral, from one-fourth to three-eighths of an inch in diameter.
** Found at Cincinnati, about 400 feet above low water of the Ohio River.”
The above description would lead one to believe that the form under consideration was a very small species of Stomatopora incrust- ing foreign objects. The type specimen, however, is not incrusting, but is a solid ramose bryozoan belonging to the species later named by Ulrich and described by Nicholson as Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) implicata, now referred to the genus Batostoma. James's description was based upon the surface of this -highly acanthopored species, his network or meshes being formed by the zocecial walls and the large perforated acanthopores representing the ‘‘little circular mouths.” The name Alecto newilis, therefore, has no standing since it rests on an inadequate diagnosis and the species will take the name given by Nicholson, this being the first by which the object was clearly defined. Nicholson accredits the species to Ulrich, but this is incorrect because, although Ulrich did first recognize the species as distinct, his name of Chaetetes implicatus published in a catalogue is merely a nomen nudum.
Batostoma implicatum is quite an abundant fossil in the Eden shale at Cincinnati and vicinity, but in no instance, to the best of the writer's knowledge, has it been found in beds above the top of this formation (about 280 feet above low water in the Ohio River). James’s reference of his Alecto nevilis to the 400-foot level (Corryville bed) is therefore probably incorrect.
AMPLEXOPORA DISCOIDEA (Nicholson).
Ne
Chaetetes discoideus James, Catal. Foss. Cincinnati group, 1871, p. 4. (Named but not defined. )
Chaetetes discoideus NicHouson, Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, XXX, 1874, p. 511, pl. xxx, figs. 44d.
Chaetetes discoideus Nicnouson, Geol. Sury. Ohio, Pal., II, 1875, p. 206, pl. xx1, figs. 15-15e.
Monticulipora ( Monotrypa) discoidea Nicnouson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 1938, pl. rv, figs. 3-3f.
Monticulipora discoidea JAmMes and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 163.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VI, 1894, p. 178.
Amplexopora discoidea Uuricu, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, p. 255.
Nicholson accredits this species to James, but inasmuch as the latter named it without definition, Chactetes discoideus James is a nomen nudum. The James types of Chactetes discoideus include, in addition to the well-known form described by Nicholson under the same name, specimens of Amplexopora petasiformis (Nicholson) and Aspidopora newberryt (Nicholson) from the Eden shale, Prasopora hospitalis (Nicholson) from the Richmond group, and several undetermined spe- cies ranging in time from the Eden to the Richmond. These various
12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
species agree in one character only, namely, the discoid method of growth.
Amplexopora discoidea is readily recognized by its discoid habit of growth, absence of mesopores and by rather numerous acanthopores and diaphragms.
Occurrence.—A. characteristic fossil of the Fairmount member of the Covington group at Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity.
AMPLEXOPORA FILIOSA (D’Orbigny). Plate III, figs. 1-3.
Monticulipora filiasa D’ OrBIGNY, Prodr. de Pal., I, 1850, p. 25. Leptotrypa filiosa ULricn, Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 456, pl. xxxv1, figs. (, fa.
Monticulipora filiasa JAMes and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 162.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV. 18938, p. 158. Amplexopora filiosa Nickues and Bassuger, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173,
1900, p. 164. Monticulipora subcylindrica (U. P. James, Ms.) J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1896, p. 123, fig. 13a-c.
The type lot of James’s Monticulipora subcylindrica consists of two specimens, one of which is an example of Dekayella ulrichi and the other—the one from which his illustrations were prepared—proves to be the same as Amplexopora jiliosa (D’Orbigny). Under the cir- cumstances, only the figured specimen should or can be considered as the type of James’s species. As this is an unquestionable example of A, jiliosa, a species described long before by D’Orbigny and well known to Cincinnati collectors, James’s Jf subeylindrica naturally falls into synonymy under A. f/zosa. The unfigured specimen resem- bles the figured type only in that it is a thick subeylindrical stem. In all other respects it differs decidedly and shows the characters of Dekayella ulrichi. (Plate II, figs. 3, 4.) The figured specimen differs from the ordinary masses of Amplexopora jiliosa merely in this, that in growing over and completely covering an Orthoceras it finally assumed a subcylindrical shape. This is not an unusual occurrence, though the majority of specimens are irregularly massive or hemi- spheric in shape. J. F. James has illustrated the internal characters of the specimen regarded as the type of his species, but thin sections of the same prepared by the writer show that his figures are not only misleading but also incorrect. On Plate III of this paper the views presented by these thin sections have been carefully drawn.
Amplexopora filiosa is a characteristic and not uncommon fossil ‘ranging from the Fairmount to and through the Corryville members throughout the Ohio Basin, and may readily be recognized by its mas- Sive zoaria, monticulated surface, thin-walled polygonal zocecia and absence of mesopores. The size of the zoarium in specimens seen by the writer has varied from lumps less than 25 mm, in diameter to
a
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. Le
dome-shaped masses 400 mm. wide and 200 to 300 mm. in height.
The surface is generally monticulated, the monticules usually being
low and rounded but sometimes strongly elevated and sharply pointed. Nine of the ordinary zocecia may be counted in a distance of 2 mm. Acanthopores are present in the successive mature zones, but are sel- dom readily noticeable at the surface.
The internal characters of this species are unusually well marked and constant. A vertical section shows that the zoarium is made up of successive zones distinguished by variations in tabulation and other respects. Often the zones are separated by clay-filled interspaces, but in most cases the zocecial tubes are practically continuous through- out a zoarium. In such specimens the individual zones can only be distinguished by the alternate development of immature and mature regions. In each of the successive immature regions the zocecia have thin walls and few or no acanthopores. Diaphragms are present but are separated from each other by distances varying from 1 to 2 tube diameters. This region passes upward, sometimes abruptly but more commonly rather gradually, into the mature region in which the walls are considerably thickened, small acanthopores developed in large numbers, and the diaphragms increased in number so that two or even three occur in a distance equal to their own diameter. An occa- sional curved or funnel-shaped diaphragm, like those frequently seen in the typical species of the genus, also may be observed in the mature region. Tangential sections passing through the mature zone bring out especially the character separating the genus Amplexopora from the otherwise quite similar group recently named Cyphotrypa. This is, namely, the presence of a central black line separating the walls of adjoining zocecia. In the latter genus the zocecial walls are so amal- gamated that their boundaries can not be distinguished, the central portion being clear or light colored. The zocecia in the immature region have such thin walls that sections show no structural features.
Occurrence. —Fairmount, Bellevue, and Corryville members of the Covington group at many localities in the Ohio Basin. Cincinnati, Ohio, is the type locality for both D’Orbigny’s and James’s specimens.
AMPLEXOPORA PETASIFORMIS-WELCHI (James).
Mohticulipora (Monotrypa) welchi James, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 50; No. 7, 1883, pl. 1, figs. 44.
Monticulipora petasiformis var. welchi JAMes and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 169.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 187.
Amplexopora petasiformis-welchi NickLEs and Basser, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Surv., No. 178, 1900, p. 165.
This variety differs from A. petas/formis only in the shape of the zoarium, which tends to assume a subramose or ramose growth instead of the usual hat-shaped masses. Variety welchi is of interest mainly
14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL, XXX.
in that it bridges the gap between the typical ramose species of Amplexo- pora and the massive forms, such as A. jiliosa or A. petasiformis. Occurrence.—Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity.
ARTHROPORA CINCINNATIENSIS (James). Plate IV, fig. 7. Ptilodictya ? cineinnatiensis James, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 39.
This is one of the Cincinnatian species of Avthropora, a genus of bifoliate bryozoa characterized by its regularly and frequently jointed zoaria. In its zocecial structure the species is very similar to the abundant A. shaffer’ (Meek), but the respective zoarial peculiarities of the two forms are so constant and evident as to justify their recogni- tion as distinct species. James gave a fairly good description of his species, a part of which is quoted below, and his diagnosis, together with the figure of the type presented on Plate IV, will probably serve for its ready identification.
Original description.—* Polyzoary , consisting of sub- cylindrical, or cylindrical stems, giving off lateral branches from half a line to one line apart at an angle, generally of about 45 degrees; branches varying in length from half a line to over one line; diameter of stems about half a line. The pores vary from long oval to subcir- cular in shape, and are arranged in alternating rows, three or four in the space of half a line measuring their longer diameter (longitudi- nally), and nearly twice that number transversely; separated, generally, about their own diameter apart. * * * ”
Compared with Arthropora cleavelandi (James) with which A. cin- cinnatiensis agrees most nearly in growth, the latter may be distin- guished by its smaller, nearly cylindrical and proportionally stouter branches, while in zocecial structure it differs in having decidedly broader interzocecial spaces, causing the zocecial apertures to be much smaller. A. shaffer? agrees better in the external appearance of its zocecia, but differs decidedly in the greater size of its segments and in their broader, relatively shorter, more frequent, and compressed lateral branches.
Occurrence.—Not uncommon in the lowermost strata of the Mount Hope member at Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity.
x * &
ARTHROPORA CLEAVELANDI (James). Plate III, figs. 13-16; plate IV, fig. 6.
Ptilodictya cleavelandi JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 38.
Arthropora shafferi-cleavelandi NickiEs and Basser, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 171.
Ptilodictya grahami James, Paleontologist, No.5, 1881, p. 39.
Ptilodictya dubia JAMEs, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 40.
Ptilodictya cleavelandi James, as shown by the type, is founded upon segments of a rather well-marked species of Arthropora occur-
—
'
"No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 15
ring abundantly throughout the various subdivisions of the Eden shale. The species is characterized by slender, generally nonbifur- cating segments (in consequence of which the complete zoarium must have consisted of comparatively only a few rigid branches), and by the numerousand small lateral branchlets springing out at nearly right angles from the main stem. The segments are usually found sepa- rated, specimens retaining more than a sequence of two or three being extremely rare. In length they vary but little from the average of 7mm. The basal segment is bifurcated and drawn outacuminately below.
The types of P. grahami and P. dubia agree exactly in their zoce- cial characters with those of P. cleavelandi and differ from the last only in each having a long striated pointed base and fewer or no lateral branchlets. As here interpreted these three supposed species are founded in two cases upon nothing further than basal segments and in the third case upon the upper segments of one and the same species of Arthropora, for which the name cleaveland? is adopted and the other two rejected.
Occurrence.
Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity. ARTHROPORA KENTUCKYENSIS (James). Plate IV, fig. 5.
Ptilodictya kentuckyensis James, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 38. Compare Arthropora bifurcata Utricn, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Minn., Final Rep., ILI, Pt. 1, 1893, p. 178, pl. x1v, figs. 22-25.
The types of Ptilodictya kentuckyensis James consist of two frag- mentary examples of a species of Avthropora, which may prove to be closely related to the Minnesota Black River form described by Ulrich“ as Arthropora bifurcata. Better and more complete examples are necessary before this relationship can be determined with certainty. In the meantime both James’s and Ulrich’s names may be recognized as valid. James’s type specimens differ from other species of Arthro- pora in having exceptionally narrow interzocecial spaces. This charac- ter, if constant, may very well be regarded as of specific importance.
The jointed, bifoliate zoarium will distinguish A. hentuchyensis from all associated bryozoa. With the exception of A. b¢furcata, the other species of Arthropora are too different to require comparison.
Occurrence.—Bromley shale of the Trenton, Ohio River bank oppo- site Cincinnati, Ohio, in strata 10 or 15 feet above low watermark.
ARTHROSTYLUS TENUIS (James).
Helopora tenuis JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 3. ‘ Arthronema tenuis Unricn, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, p. 160, pl. vi, figs. 8-8c.
Arthrostylus tenwis Utricu, Geol, and Nat. Hist. Surv. Minnesota, Final Rept., IT, Pt. 1, 1893, pl. mz, fig. 16¢.
@Geol. and Nat, Hist. Sury. Minn., Final Rep., III, Pt. 1, 1893, p. 178.
16 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
Although the original description of this fine species is incorrect in |
several details, the study of the types shows that it was correctly identified and well illustrated by Ulrich in 1882.¢
The zoarium is jointed, but specimens showing the segments still in connection are not common. The segments are very slender, straight, needle-shaped rods, about 5 mm. in length, slightly expanding toward the obtusely rounded upper extremity. The latter articulates with the pointed lower ends of generally two succeeding segments, the complete zoarium appearing to consist of extremely delicate and regu- larly bifurcating branches. Cross sections of a segment are subquad- rangular in shape, three of the sides being concave and equal in width, while the fourth side is slightly convex and half again as wide. Each of the three equal sides bears a row of zocecia, while 6 to 8 longitudi- nal strive mark the fourth side. The zocecial apertures are oval, and when perfect have a delicate and prominent equally elevated rim; 9 zocecia in 2 mm. .
The small slender segments of A. fenwis with the three equal cellu- liferous sides and the broader, striated, noncelluliferous fourth side are so different from the zoaria of all other bryozoa in the Cincin- natian series that comparison is not necessary.
Not uncommon throughout the Eden shale at Cincin- nati and vicinity. James’s type is from the lower division (Economy member) where specimens are particularly abundant.
Occurrence.
ASPIDOPORA CALYCULA (James.) Plate I, figs. 8-i0.
Lichenalia ? calycula James, Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1871, p. 5 (not defined) .
Chitetes ? calyculus JAMES, Introd. Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1875, p. 1.
Monticulipora (Diplotrypa) calycula Nicnouson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 165, pl. iv, figs. 4-4). p
Monticulipora calycula J AMES and J Amks, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 167.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VI, 1894, p. 184.
Aspidopora calycula Utricn, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Sury., Minnesota, Final Rept., III, Pt. 1, 1893, p. 255.
Most of the characters of this species have been so well described and illustrated by Nicholson that its identification is a matter of little difficulty. New figures of the internal structure are introduced here partly to show the identity of James’s types with the form described by Nicholson, but mainly to give a better illustration of a vertical section than has been published heretofore. In the vertical section figured by Nicholson the zoarium is cut in such a way that a false idea of the internal features is presented. Such sections, in order to bring out the essential characters, should cut the zoarium at right angles to the growing edge. A. ca/ycula, when sectioned in this way, shows
“Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Minn., Final Report, III, Pt. 1, 1893, pl. mm, fig. 16e. +
ir =!
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. tT
that an immature zone is present as in nearly all Paleozoic bryozoa, but this region is so short that it will not be noticed unless the section is made in the manner indicated above. Numerous acanthopores and closely tabulated mesopores are developed in the mature region, while each zocecium generally shows a single large cystiphragm occupying the bend from the immatnre to the mature region. Rarely a second and even a third may be developed above the first.
Aspidopora calycula is the only described species of the genus occurring in the particular strata in which it is found, while from associated bryozoa the discoid zoarium with numerous mesopores and acanthopores and the zocecial tubes with large cystiphragms will serve as a ready means of separation.
Occurrence.—Not uncommon in the Bromley shale of the Trenton, exposed along the Ohio River bank opposite Cincinnati, Ohio.
ASPIDOPORA ECCENTRICA (James). Plate Fl, figs. 8-12; plate V, figs. 7, 8.
Montieulipora (Heterotrypa?) eccentrica JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 48; No. 7, pl. 1, figs. 6, 6a.
Monticulipora eccentrica JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 167, pl. 1, figs. 2a-c.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 185.
Aspidopora eccentrica Utricu, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Sury., Minnesota, Final Rept., IIL, Pt. 1, 1893, p. 255.
Zoarium a small, free, subcircular expansion averaging 4 mm. in diameter and 1 mm. or less in thickness. Occasionally several of these disks may be found in contact and forming a zoarium as in A. areolata Ulrich. Celluliferous face smooth, slightly convex, and ‘showing that the zoarium is composed of a single macula surrounded by zocecia of the normal size. Under surface flat or concave and lined with an epithe- cal membrane whose wrinkles or lines of growth are arranged about a point nearer the margin than the center of the base. Zocecial aper- tures rounded or ovate, the average diameter of the ordinary zocecium 0.3 mm. with 6 in 2 mm. while the largest zocecia of the macule attain a diameter half againas great. Mesopores rather numerous, 6 usually surrounding a zocecium and occupying the fnterspaces left by the zocecia where their walls fail to touch. Acanthopores few and small and sel- dom detected either in sections or on the specimens.
The internal characters of this form differ but little from other species of the genus. The large, elongate but few cystiphragms and the absence of diaphragms characterize the zocecial tubes while the mesopores are, as usual in this genus, closely tabulated.
This neat little species can readily be recognized by its small subcir- cular zoarium and the eccentric wrinkles of the epithecated side. The species seems to be restricted to the middle division of the Eden shale in the Cincinnati area. Washings from certain shale beds will often
Proc. N. M. vol. xxx—06 2
18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL, XXX.
yield hundreds of free examples while the limestone layers sometimes show an abundance of specimens on their surfaces. The best develop- ment of the species at Cincinnati occurs in the shales at a horizon 170 feet above low water mark in the Ohio River.
Occurrence.—Southgate member of the Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity.
BATOSTOMA VARIANS (James).
Chaetetes varians JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 2.
Monticulipora ( Chaetetes) varians JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 36.
Monticulipora varians JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 177, pl. 1, figs. 4a, b.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV 1, 18945. 199:
Batostoma varians NicKuEs and Bassuer, Bull. U. 8. Geological Survey, No. 173, 1900, p. 179.
Batostoma variabile (part) Utricu, Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 460, pl. xxxV, figs. 4b-4e (not 4, 4a, 5, or pl. xxxv1, fig. 1).
The earliest description of this species was suflicient for its recog- nition especially since it was compared with Chaetetes (now Batostoma) jamest Nicholson, of which good figures and a description had appeared some years before. James’s description of 1881 also gives a fair idea of the form and comparisons with the related B. james. Ulrich’s defi- nition and figures of Latostoma variabile” prove upon further investiga- tion to be founded upon at least two distinct species of Batostoma, one of which as indicated above is synonymous with ZB. varians, while the second is here recognized and redefined as B. variabile. The geological occurrence of the two species is quite different, B. varians ranging from the Arnheim formation to and through the Whitewater forma- tion of the Richmond group, and 4. variabile being a characteristic fossil of the uppermost beds of the same group.
Comparing B. varians with B. james’, the former is found to have thin-walled, angular, instead of oval, thick-walled zocecia, few and irregularly placed instead of numerous mesopores, fewer diaphragms, and a lobate or subfrondescent zoarium instead of a regularly ramose one as in the latter species. For good figures of both the internal and external characters of B. varians, the student is referred to those mentioned above under the citation of B. vwariabile.
Occurrence. —Abundant in the Arnheim, Waynesville, Liberty, and Whitewater formations of the Richmond group in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.
BATOSTOMA VARIABILE Ulrich (restricted).
Plate VII, figs. 9, 10. Batostoma variabile (part) Uuricu, Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 460, pl. XXXvV, fig. 5; pl. xxxvi, fig. 1 (not pl. xxxv, figs. 44-4e= B. varians). As mentioned in the remarks under the preceding species, Ulrich’s Batostoma variabile includes at least two distinct forms, one of which
@Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 460.
|
:
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 19
is the same as Latostoma varians (James), while the second is a good species of the same genus. The writer proposes to restrict the spe- cies Batostoma variabile to the second form. Illustrations of the external features of this form have already been published by Ulrich, as cited above, and figures of the internal structure are given on Plate VII of this article.
B. variabile, as thus restricted, forms robust, cylindrical or subecom- pressed usually infrequently dividing stems, 10 mm. or more in diam- eter. The surface of the zoarium is smooth but maculze of conspicu- ously larger zocecia are present. The zocecia are thin-walled and angular at the surface with mesopores practically absent. Below the surface the zocecial walls are so thickened by deposits of tissue along their sides that a tangential section through this region gives a rounded aspect to the apertures. Six to seven of the ordinary zocecia occur in2 mm. Acanthopores sometimes large and occupying all the zocecial angles, but at other times not a conspicuous feature. Distribu- tion of diaphragms and other internal features as shown on Plate VII.
Because of the absence of mesopores, this species shows with unu- sual distinctness in tangential sections, the black line separating the walls of contiguous zocecia, a characteristic feature of this as well as a number of other genera of the monticuliporoids. The large, smooth, ramose zoarium, angular contiguous zocecia, few mesopores, and con- spicuous clusters are characters sufficient to distinguish this form from other species of the genus.
The specimens figured by Ulrich from the Richmond group at Savannah, Illinois (Plate XX XV, figs. 4, 4a, in the work cited above) can not be determined with certainty on account of their ill-preserved internal structure, but it is probable that they belong to neither of the two species under discussion.
Occurrence. —Uppermost beds of Richmond group at a number of localities in Indiana and Ohio. The types which are in the collections of the U. 8. National Museum, were found in the vicinity of Osgood, Indiana.
BYTHOPORA ARCTIPORA (Nicholson). Plate Il, figs. 1, 2. Ptilodictya ? arctipora NicHoutson, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (4), XV, 1875, p. 180, pl. xiv, figs. 4-45. Ptilodictya ? arctipora NicHouson, Geol. Sury. Ohio, Pal., II, 1875, p. 262, pl. xxv, figs. 9-9). Bythopora arctipora Mititer and Dysr, Contr. to Pal., No. 2, 1878, p. 6. Chetetes minutus JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 3, 1879, p. 20.
The types of Chaetetes minutus James consist of a number of speci- mens of asmall species of Bythopora. Carefully compared with other species of this genus, they all prove to be more or less youthful branches of the. same species of which Nicholson had previously
20 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOU. Kxexs
described“ very old examples under the name Ptilodictya ? arctipora. This determination was quite unexpected since in their revision of the Monticuliporoids James and James, who might be expected to know the facts in the case and therefore were followed by Nickles and the writer,’ place C. minutus as a synonym of Monticulipora (now Bytho- pora) delicatula (Nicholson).°
Occurrence.— Bythopora arctipora is a characteristic and very abun- dant fossil of all the divisions of the Eden shale in the Ohio basin. The types of C. minutus were found near Loveland, Clermont County, Ohio.
BYTHOPORA DENDRINA (James).
se dendrina JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 3 (July 2, 1878); No. 2, . . ae dendrina NicKLEs and Bassuer, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 185. Bythopora fruticosa Miuuter and Dyer, Contr. to Pal., No. 2, 1878, p. 6. pl. rv, figs. 6, 6a (July 22, 1878).
The type of /elopora dendrina does not belong to the James collec- tion and the following remarks are introduced here only to indicate the rather unusual history of the species. As indicated in the above synonymy, James’s species antedates B. fruticosa by only twenty days, but both names seem to be founded upon the same specimen. The specimen described by James was an unusually fine zoarium found by Mr. Charles Schuchert, who, after James’s description had been writ- ten, disposed of it to Mr. C. B. Dyer. The type of B. fruticosa came from Mr. Dyer’s collection, and apparently is the same specimen as that found by Mr. Schuchert, the result being that the two names have not only been founded upon the same species, but probably also upon the same specimen.
B. dendrvina may be distinguished from other species of Bythopora by its frequently branching, slender stems; James’s description brings out the superficial characters even though unaccompanied by illustra- tion.
Occurrence.—Fairview formation, Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity.
BYTHOPORA GRACILIS (Nicholson. )
Chaetetes gracilis JaAMEs, Catal. Low. Sil. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1871, p. 3 (named only).
Chaetetes gracilis NICHOLSON, Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, XXX, 1874, p. 504, pl. xxrx, figs. 7, 7a; Geol. Surv. Ohio, Pal., II, 1875, p. 198, pl. xx1, figs. 8, 8b.
Monticutipora (Heterotrypa) gracilis Nicnotson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 125, pl. nu, figs. 1-1b, and fig. 20.
@Geol. Sury. Ohio, Pal., II, 1875, p- 262.
? Bull. U. 8. Geological Survey, No. 173, 1900, p. 184.
« Chaetetes delicatulus Nicholson, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, XXX, 1874, p. 505, pl. xxix, figs, 8-8b.
bo
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. ]
Monticulipora gracilis JAMes and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 175.
Monticulipora gracilis J, F. James, Jour, Cincinnati Soc. Nat, Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 191.
Batostomella gracilis Utricu, Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 432, pl. xxxv, fig. 2.
Bythopora gracilis Nickirs and Bassuer, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p- 185.
This species among others was merely named by James but described and accredited to him by Nicholson. As in this and other similar cases, the James name is a nomen nudum, so that the real author of the species is Nicholson. The species has been well described and figured by Nicholson and Ulrich, and the student is referred to the works above cited for their detailed descriptions.
Occurrence.—Abundant in the Fairview and McMillan formations throughout the Ohio Basin. The species is especially abundant in the Corryville member, many slabs from this division being covered with their white, smooth, narrow branches.
BYTHOPORA MEEKI (James).
Chaetetes meeki JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 1.
Monticulipora (Chaetetes) meeki JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 35.
Monticulipora gracilis var. meeki NicHouson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 127.
Monticulipora meeki JAmes and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 174.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 192.
Bythopora meeki Nickurs and Bassuer, Bull. U.S. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 186.
The type lot of Chaetetes meeki James contains, besides the well- known form regarded by Nicholson as a variety of Monticulipora gra- cilis, specimens of Rhombotrypa quadrata (Rominger), Homotrypa communis Bassler, an undetermined species, and a ramose example of Lomotrypa flabellaris Ulrich. -All of these species agree in but one feature, the general form of the zoarium, and also show how little value can be attached to this character alone. Strangely enough with such a mixture, James’s descriptions are correct since he recognizes the relationship of his species with Chaetetes (now Bythopora) gracilis and gives good comparisons between the two forms. Evidently he based his remarks upon a few of his ‘‘types” and these happened to be of the species now recognized as Bythopora mecki.
The various species of Bythopora are so much alike in internal structure that it is not strange that Nicholson considered the species under discussion only a variety of his Monticulipora gracilis. THow- ever, the fact that it occupies and is characteristic of a different geo- logical horizon, and always forms a considerably larger zoarium, seems to me reason enotgh for its rank as a distinct species. Bythopora gracilis forms long slender stems seldom over 3 mm. in diameter and characterizes the Fairview. and McMillan formations, while the
22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
branches of B. meek? are seldom less than 6 or 7 mm. in diameter, and occur only in the Waynesville formation of the Richmond group.
Occurrence.—W ay nesville formation, Richmond group, at most local- ities in the Ohio Basin. James’s types were from Clinton and Warren counties, Ohio.
BYTHOPORA PARVULA (James).
Plate III, figs. 11, 12; plate V, fig. 4.
Helopora parvula James, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 3. Bythopora parvula Nickuxes and Bassuer, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 186.
The types of Helopora parvula are from the upper part of the Eden shale, and prove to represent a form of Lythopora quite distinct from other species of this genus. The following description and compari- son bring out its essential features.
Zoarium consisting of very slender cylindrical branches seldom exceeding 0.4 mm. in diameter, dividing at irregular but rather long intervals and bearing 4 or 5 rows of elongate oval zocecia rounded behind and drawn out in front, separated from each other longitudi- nally by spaces equal to their longer diameter. Measuring length- wise about 5 zocecia in 2 mm. Narrow, channeled interspaces sepa- rate the rows of zoccia. Mesopores and acanthopores obsolete or apparently wanting. Diaphragms sparingly developed.
In its internal characters the species simulates Vematopora, but the proportionally much greater length of the zocecial tubes is regarded as indicating the trepostomatous genus Bythopora rather than the Cryptostomata.
Compared with other species of Lythopora, the present form may be easily distinguished by its extremely slender branches and widely separated zocecial apertures. The associated B. arctipora has broader branches and more closely set zocecia and well developed acanthopores in greater or less abundance.
Occurrence.—MeMicken member ot Eden shale, Loveland, Ohio.
CALLOPORA MULTITABULATA (Ulrich). Plate I, figs. 5-7.
Monticulipora kentuckensis JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 7, 1883, p. 57, pl. m1, figs. 1-1b.
Monticulipora kentuckensis JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 180, pl. 1, figs. 6a-d.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 203.
Monotrypella multitabulata Utricu, Fourteenth Ann. Rep. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Minnesota, 1886, p. 100.
Callopora multitabulata Unricu, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Minnesota, Final Rept., III, Pt. 1, 1893, p. 280, pl. xx1n, figs. 11, 12, 16, 17, 24-26, 30, 31.
Monticulipora kentuckensis James could certainly never be recog- nized from any of the descriptions or figures given by its author.
ee
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 23
The descriptions bring out no distinctive characters and the figures, especially of the internal structure, are inadequate and indeed quite incorrect. Figs. 5-7 on Plate I faithfully present the characters shown in the sections originally used and figured by James and James. A comparison of the two sets of figures will show decided differences. _James’s types prove to be the same as the Kentucky form of the species well described by Ulrich as Monotrypella multitabulata.¢ However, since James’s description and figures, as already stated, are wholly inadequate and incorrect in the most essential features, it clearly falls into synonymy under the rules cited on a previous page. Occurrence.—Abundant in the Lexington limestone of the Trenton at a number of localities in Kentucky. James’s types were found at Paris, Kentucky, but were erroneously recorded as coming from the
Cincinnati group.
CALLOPORA ONEALLI (James). Plate VI, figs. 1, 2.
Chetetes ? o’nealli JAMES, Introd. Catal. Low. Sil. Foss., 1875, p. 2.
Monticulipora o’nealli JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 174.—J. F. Jamus, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VI, 1894, p. 194.
Callopora onealli Mruuter, North American Geol. Pal., 1889, p. 296.
Not Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) o’nealli NicHotson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 118 = Callopora onealli sigillarioides (Nicholson).
The lower third of the Eden shale wherever exposed in the Ohio Basin generally contains a small species of Ca/lopora in abundance. The same formation, especially the upper third, affords great num- bers of two well-marked varieties. The small, earlier form of this species was first described by James in 1875, as above cited, under the name of Chextetes ? o’nealli but figures were never published. In 1882, the same author distinguished one of the varieties as Monticul7- pora (Heterotrypa) onealli ? var. communis. The other variety is the same as the form described in 1875 by Nicholson under the name Chetetes sigillarioides.” In the ‘*‘Genus Monticulipora,” Nicholson abandoned his species, believing it to be identical with C. oneallc. Nickles and Bassler in their Synopsis proposed the arrangement of these forms as given in this paper, namely, recognizing C. onealli as a distinct species with the two varieties communis and sigdlariovdes.
The zoarium of C. onealli is of narrow, frequently dividing branches 1.5 to 2.0 mm. in diameter, often anastomosing so as to form a small bushy clump. The zocecia, of which 5 to 6 occur in 2 mm., are oval and separated by more or less numerous mesopores. Variety communis has the same zoarial growth, but its branches are much more robust, their average diameter being 7 mm. Its zocecia also are polygonal
“Fourteenth Ann. Rep. Geol. Nat. Hist. Sury. Minnosota, 1886, p. 100. b Pal. Ohio, II, 1875, p. 208, pl. xxu11, figs. 9, 9a.
94 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
and in contact at the surface because of the scarcity of mesopores in this region. The zocecial characters of variety sigillarioides are the same as in the typical form, but the zoarium differs in consisting of rather long, graceful branches, 4 or 5 mm. in diameter, dividing less frequently and not tending to anastomose.
The internal structure of C. oneall/ is essentially the same as that figured by Nicholson in 1881% for the variety s¢gi/larioides, but tangen- tial sections of variety communis differ from both in showing few meso- pores and polygonal zocecia.
Oceurrence.— C. onealli is particularly abundant in the Economy member of the Eden shale in the vicinity of Cincinnati; variety s¢gd- larioides ranges through the formation in equal abundance while variety communis is best developed in the upper (McMicken) member of these rocks.
CALLOPORA ONEALLI COMMUNIS (James). Plate I, fig. 13; plate IV, figs. 8, 9. Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) onealli? var. communis JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p..47; No. 7, 1883, pl. 1, fig. 8. Monticulipora communis JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 175, pl. u, figs. 5a, b.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 195.
Callopora onealli-communis Nickies and Basster, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 190.
This variety has been discussed in the remarks under Callopora onealli and, as there stated, may be distinguished from the typical form of the species by its decidedly robust instead of delicate branches and by its few mesopores. The branches are usually about 7 mm. in diameter and form bushy masses by their anastomosis. The internal strueture is the same as in C. onealli and var. siyillarioides with the exception that as the surface is approached many of the mesopores pinch out so that at the surface itself the zocecia are in contact prac- tically on all sides. This causes the zocecia to assume a polygonal outline and to become a trifle larger than in typical C. onealli. They are also larger than in the variety s¢g/llarioides, but the average number of zocecia in a given space is the same in all three forms.
The types of the variety communis are missing, but the examples here figured on Plate IV are identical with specimens labeled by Mr. James in the collections of the U. S. National Museum.
— Occurrence.—Abundant in the Eden shale at many localities in the Ohio Basin, Cincinnati being the type locality. Especially fine speci- mens are found in the upper beds of this formation.
“Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 118, pl. 1m, figs. 3-3f.
No, 1442, JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 25
CALLOPORELLA CIRCULARIS (James).
Monticulipora ( Heterotrypa) circularis JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 46. ~ Monticulipora circularis JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 7, 1883, p. 58, pl.t, figs. 3, 3a.
Monticulipora lens JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 165.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 181. (Not Nebulipora lens McCoy. )
Calloporella harrisi Utricn, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VI, 1883, p. 91, pl. 1, figs. 5-5e.
Calloporella circularis Nickies and Basster, Bull. U. S. Geol. Sury., No. 173 1900, p. 193.
’
James’s original description of this form is clear enough to make one reasonably certain that his species is the same as that described and figured shortly after by Ulrich as Calloporella harrisi and an examination of the type specimensof each provesthis beyond a doubt. The absence of figures in the case of J/. circularisis nota valid excuse for rejecting the name, inasmuch as the description gives a clear state- ment of both the internal and external characters. James and James in 1888 and J. F. James again in 1894 recognize JM. circularis as a synonym of McCoy’s Nebulipora lens—a species from Great Britain which has a similar zoarial growth, but whose zocecial characters are not yet known. The possibility of the two forms proving to repre- sent the same species is, in the opinion of the writer, very remote.
Ulrich has given a good description and figures of the species and the student is referred to his work. The discoid zoarium, with rounded zocecia surrounded by ring-like walls and separated by numerous closely tabulated mesopores, characterize the species.
Occurrence.—Not uncommon in the Waynesville formation of the Richmond. The type locality is Westboro, Ohio, but the species has been found at many other places in southwestern Ohio and southeastern Indiana.
CERAMOPORA CONCENTRICA James.
Ceramopora concentrica JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 5.
Ceramopora concentrica JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., NJ, 1888, p. 38, pl. 1, figs. 8, 8 a.
Not Celoclema concentricum Nickies and Basster, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury. No. 173, 1900, p. 212 (=Celoclema ( Diamesopora) commune (ULRICH) ).
The original description of this form is too vague for recognition, and the species must date from 1883, when James and James gave another description and figured a specimen. The type lot, from which the original description was apparently drawn, consists of the following:
(1) Three specimens of Ceramoporella distincta Ulrich from the Eden shale at Cincinnati or vicinity.
(2) Two specimens of Ceramoporella ohioensis (Nicholson) from the upper beds of the Eden shale at Cincinnati.
26 PROCEEDINGS. OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
(3) One specimen of the basal” expansion oF Chiloporella flabellata (Ulrich) from the Corryville member at Cincinnati.
(4) Several specimens of the basal expansion of Cocloclema commune (Ulrich) and fragments of the branches of the same species, all of these being from the lower part of the Eden shale, and probably from the bank of the Ohio River at Ludlow, Kentucky.
The specimen selected for illustration by James and James,“and which should be adopted as the real type of the species, is a robust, frequently branching specimen of Callopora onealli-sigillarioides (Nicholson) over- grown by a finely preserved example of Ceramoporella ohioensis (Nich- olson).’ This specimen was found in the upper beds of the Eden shale, near Eden Park reservoir, Cincinnati. Ceramopora concentrica James and James, therefore, as based on the figured type, is a synonym for Ceramoporella ohioensis (Nicholson). Without the specimen it would be impossible to make this determination, since the figure is wholly without distinctive characters. As stated, the original description is too indefinite, and, as the type lot shows, based upon too many dis- tinct species for recognition.
Nickles and the writer in their Sy nopsis of American Fossil Bea referred James’s Ceramopora concentrica to the genus Coeloclema, mak- ing Ulrich’s Diamesopora communis a synonym. How erroneous our ideas of the species were is shown by the above remarks, our concep- tion of the species being based upon a ee specimen received by Mr. Nickles some years ago from Mr. James, and which happened to be the same as Ulrich’s Diamesopora (now Coan lema) communis. Hence Coeloclema concentricum of Nickles and Bassler is a synonym of Coeloclema commune (Ulrich).
CERAMOPORA ? IRREGULARIS James.
Ceramopora ? irregularis JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 5.
This species was described as incrusting foreign substances and having cells similar to those of Chactetes jamest Nicholson. The simi- larity to the species mentioned is borne out by the type specimens, inasmuch as three of the type lot are typical ramose examples of C. (now Batostoma) jamesi and four are incrusting forms of the same species, while the remaining specimen represents the parasitic base of Batostoma implicatum.
The variation in the shape of the zocecia which suggested the specific name is due either to growth over an uneven surface or to indentations of the zocecial walls caused by the development of numer- ous acanthopores. Instead of being a synonym of B. ¢mplicatum, as stated by Nickles and Bassler, > teks name should have been placed as
« Jour. Gramanan Soc. Nat. ieee XJ, 1888, pl. 1 . 8, 8a » Ceramopora ohioensis fcholson: Pal. Ohio, II, a 75, p. 265, pl. xxv, figs. 10a, b, e (not 10 ¢, d).
e
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. are
synonymous in part with both B. james? and. B. jmplicatum. How- ever, the original and only diagnosis is so vague that for that reason alone the name ought to be dropped.
CERAMOPORA NICHOLSONI James.
Ceramopora nicholsoni JAMES, Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1875, p. 3.
Monticulipora (Fistulipora) nicholsoni James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 34, pl. 1, figs. 6-6e.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1896, p. 121, fig. 12.
Not Chiloporella nicholsoni Nrckues and Bassuer, Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey, No. 173, 1900, p. 207 (=Chiloporella flabellata Utricn).
This species was first described by James as ‘‘incrusting foreign substances.” The type species, however, is not an incrusting form but is a solid flabellate expansion, and that this specimen is the one used by James for his description is attested by the label in his hand- writing accompanying it. The name C. nicholson? therefore, being founded on characters which do not belong to the specimen, following the laws of nomenclature, must be abandoned.
James’s type is an example of /’%stulipora flabellata described by Ulrich in 1879. In 1879 James also described the two species, /. mult/- poraand LF. silurvana, but in the James and James revision of the Monticuliporide in 1888, these two names, together with Ulrich’s Ff, flabellata and also Callopora cincinnatiensis of the same author were made synonyms of (C. nicholsoni. The respective types of I. multipora and F. siluriana, as noted under these headings in this paper, contain a number of different species, while Ulrich’s Cadlopora cincinnatiensis, the third supposed synonym which was erroneously described by its author as coming from Cincinnati, happens to be the same as Lioclema occidens (Hall and Whittield) from the Upper Devonian of Iowa.@
Nickles and Bassler, believing that with the exception of C. eincin- natiensis, the synonymy given by James for (. nicholson? was correct, recognized his species as Chiloporella nicholsoni, and placed Ulrich’s well-defined Chiloporella (Fistulipora) flabellata as a synonym. Had they seen the types they certainly would not have fallen into this error, nor would such stress have been put upon ‘‘ authentic” specimens had they known of the number of distinct forms often included among the specimens marked as the original types of one and the same species.
To sum up, the writer would now regard Ceramopora nicholsoni and its so-called synonyms as follows: (1) Ceramopora nicholsoni itself must be abandoned, since the species is founded upon characters not shown by the type. (2) /’stulipora flabellata Ulrich is recognized as a good species and as the type of the genus Chiloporella. (3) Both
@Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 427.
28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. Vor. cx
the types of each, moreover, include a number of distinet species. Therefore neither of the last two names is held as valid. (4) Callopora cincinnatiensis is a synonym for Lioclema occidens and has no relation at all with any of the Cincinnatian bryozoa.
CERAMOPORA RADIATA James.
Ceramopora radiata JAmEs, Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 12.
The type and only specimen described under this name proves to be a young example of Ceramoporella granulosa milfordensis (James) from the Eden shale at Cincinnati. The specimen consists of but a few macule with the zocecial apertures long-drawn out and radiating from them in a more marked degree than usual. A similar condition characterizes young specimens of all species of Ceramoporella. Con- sequently the radial arrangement depended upon in distinguishing the species should not be regarded as a valid specific character.
CERAMOPORELLA GRANULOSA MILFORDENSIS (James).
Plate VI, fig. 7.
Callopora milfordensis JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 11.
Monticulipora ( Fistulipora) milfordensis JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 36, pl. 1, figs. 7-7b—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1896, p. 122.
Ceramoporella granulosa milfordensis NicKLEs and BassuEr, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sur- vey, No. 173, 1900, p. 200.
None of the descriptions or figures of this form is sufficient for its recognition, but I have adopted James’s name in a subordinate sense to distinguish an abundant Eden shale variety of Ceramoporella. The specimens separated by James under the specific name 7/fordensis are of a Ceramoporella that ranges with certain slight but distinguish- able modifications through all the subdivisions of the Covington and Richmond groups. The first recognizable description and figures of one of the varieties of this cosmopolitan species was published in 1890 by Ulrich when he proposed the specific designation C. granulosa for the form occurring so abundantly in the shaly limestone of the Rich- mond group in northern Illinois. Variety m/fordensis differs from the typical C. granulosa in having slightly smaller zocecia and in the very slight development of the peculiar granules that occur so abun- dantly in the Illinois types of the species. The zoaria of the latter also grow into much thicker and larger masses than those of the Eden shales variety.
Other forms of this general type were found in succeeding Cincin- natian rocks. In course of time these probably will receive similar subordinate designations.
«Geol. Surv. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 466, pl. x1, figs. 2, 2".
.
j
NO. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 29
Occurrence.—The James types were found in the Eden shales at Milford, Ohio, but the variety occurs generally in abundance in the Ohio Basin wherever the strata mentioned are exposed.
CERAMOPORELLA WHITEI (James), Plate V, fig. 6; plate VI, figs. 8-10.
Ceramopora whitei James, Paleontologist No. 2, 1878, p. 12.
Ceramopora ? whitei JAMEs and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, pees, pl. 1; figs.-9;.9¢.
Ceramoporella whitei NickLEs and Basser, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p- 201.
James recognized the relations of this species by comparing it in his original description with Nicholson’s C. ohioensis.“ The description and figures given by. James.and James in 1888 are practically worth- less. The figure of the type agrees so little with the specimen itself that were it not for the presence of three cracks traversing it, one could not be certain of the identification. The view of the surface enlarged is also incorrect, as a comparison with a photograph of the same on Plate V will show. Fortunately the species has not been described under any other name, so that James’s specific designation may be retained.
The zoarium forms thin crusts over foreign bodies, but by the super- position of numerous layers may become massive. Each zoarial layer is short, rarely exceeding 1.5 mm. in thickness. Surface smooth, the maculz or clusters of rather thick-walled mesopores not being elevated. Zocecia small, more or less angular, thin-walled and direct, about 7 in 2mm. Mesopores generally few, sometimes absent altogether. Lunarium occupying from one-fourth to one-third of the zocecial cir- cumference, seldom overarching the zocecial cavity and always a more or less inconspicuous feature of the surface. The internal structure is essentially the same as in other species of the genus and is more clearly brought out by the figures on Plate VI than would be possible by description.
As is the case in other species of the same section of Ceramoporella, C. white: exhibits considerable variation. This consists principally of (1) differences in the relative number and distribution of the meso- pores even in different or adjoining parts of the same zoarium, (2) in the degree in which the zocecia imbricate, and consequently (3) in the degree of obliquity of the apertures, and (4) in the extent to which the lunaria are developed in the zocecia occupying the macule. How- ever, the features presented by James’s type are exhibited on at least a portion of nearly every one of several hundred specimens seen by the writer.
“Ceramopora ohioensis Nicholson, Pal. Ohio, II, 1875, p. 265, pl. xxv, figs. 10 a, b, e (not 10 ¢, d.).
‘ .
30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
C.. ohioensis, a closely related species, may be separated by its uni- formly more imbricating and radially arranged triangular-shaped zoce- cial apertures and conspicuous, over-arching lunaria.
Occurrence.—James’s type came from the Corryville member at Cincinnati. The species is not uncommon and ranges from this bed to and through the various divisions of the Richmond group.
CHAETETES CRUSTULATUS James.
Chetetes crustulatus JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 1; No. 3, 1879, p. 20.
Monticulipora crustulata JAMeEs and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 23, pl. 1, figs. 2, 2a.
Monticulipora crustulata J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VIII, 1895, p. 82.
The original description of this form is so general that it is impossi- ble to determine which particular one of the four or five species found in the Cincinnatian series incrusting Orthocerata was intended by its author. Indeed it is probable that he had no particular one in mind as the synonymy given later by James and James indicates.
The specimens upon which Mr. James founded his original diagnosis are not distinguished in the collection. The type specimen selected. and figured in 1888 as Monticulipora crustulata is probably an example of Spatiopora maculosa Ulrich which had been accurately defined and figured by that author in 1883.¢ ‘This identification, however, is based only on the general view of the zoarium,’ the figure of the surface enlarged (fig. 27) being almost certainly incorrect since the thickness of wall shown is not attained by any Cincinnatian bryozoan known to me. This figured specimen is missing, but another example now marked as the type is Spatiopora maculosa Ulrich.
The name Chuetetes crustulatus, therefore, must be dropped since it was not defined exactly enough for recognition. MJonticulipora crustulata although figured, can not be determined with certainty because of the poor illustrations and the absence of the type specimen.
CHAETETES LYCOPERDON James (not Hall).
Chaetetes lycoperdon JAMES Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 11. Chaetetes lycopodites JAMES Paleontologist, No. 3, 1879, p. 20.
The specific names lycoperdon and lycopodites were employed by James for some massive Cincinnatian bryozoan but which one can not be decided from his descriptions. His collection also now contains no specimen labelled with either of these names. It matters little, how- ever, since so many species have been described by authors under the designation Chaetetes Lycoperdon that the name, never having been restricted to any particular one, now has no standing.
« Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VI, 1883, p. 167, pl. vu, fig. 6. > James and James, 1888, pl. 1, fig. 2.
©
No 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. a1
_ CHAETETES PETROPOLITANUS James (not Pander).
Chaetetes petropolitanus James, Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 11.
The Cincinnatian form referred to as above by James 1s most cer- tainly not the same as the European Ordovician species described by
Pander. Which particular one of the massive or hemispheric forms
James had in mind can not be determined. Possibly Amplexopora petasiformis (Nicholson) was the form intended, but the matter is of no consequence since the James identification of C. petropolitanus is unmistakably incorrect.
CHAETETES SUBROTUNDUS James.
( Chaetetes subrotundus JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 11. Astylospongia subrotundus JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 34. Microspongia ? subrotundus J. F. JAmes, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XIV, 1891, p. 55, fig. 1.
The name under which this form was first described would lead one to believe it to be a bryozoan. Subsequently, as shown above, the form was regarded as a species of Astylospongia and later as Micro- spongia. ‘There is little doubt that the specimens belong to one of the numerous forms or variations of india sphaevoidalis Duncan. The type specimens of C. subrotundus were found at Ogden Station, Clin- ton County, Ohio.
CHAETETES TURBINATUM James.
Chaetetes turbinatum J Ames, Paleontologist, No. 2, 1878, p. 11.
Monticulipora turbinata JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 161, pl. 11, figs. 1 a-c.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, 1893, p. 158.
Not Monotrypa turbinata NickuEs and Basser, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 316 (= Monotrypa subglobosa Ulrich).
The name Chaetetes turbinatum was proposed tentatively in 1878 for specimens differing from Chaetetes petropolitanus in being turbinate in form and in having the basal attachment small. (C. turbinatum was stated to range from the lowest to the highest exposed beds at Cincin- nati and vicinity. Now just which one of the six or more massive bryozoa occurring in this range of strata at Cincinnati was considered as Chaetetes petropolitanus can never be accurately determined from the literature, and none of the specimens in the James’s collection is labelled so as to indicate which form that author had in mind. This first reference to Chaetetes turb/natum is therefore of no value, the name being little more than a nomen nudum.
In 1879 Ulrich described Chaetetes subglobosus,* which James and James recognized as a synonym of their C. turbinatum in 1888,’ when
«Jour. Cincinnati Nat. Hist., II, 1879, p. 129, pl. x1, figs. 11-11b. bIdem., X, 1888, p. 161.
32 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
they figured and deser ibed their species for the first time, the original definition being merely a comparison with an apareecely identified Cincinnati species. In the paper mentioned the latter authors figure two specimens which in the collection are labelled as the types of the species. These specimens agree in one character only, namely, the turbinate growth ascribed to the species by the authors. The zoccia of each, however, are so different in size, shape, and arrangement that a lens is not necessary to determine that the two specimens repre- sent very distinct species. The original of fig. 16% is a specimen of Cyphotrypa acervulosa (Ulrich),’? a species hitherto known only from the Trenton. It is doubtful whether this specimen came from Cin- cinnati, as isstated by James. Still, it is possible that it was found in the Trenton strata exposed opposite Cincinnati along the banks of the Ohio River. The second figured type (fig. la of the article cited) is a typical example of Jonotrypa subglobosa (Ulrich),’ found only in the lower part of the Eden shales. Fig. 1¢ presumably is intended to rep- resent the surface of one of the two types. No matter which one was chosen, the figure is incorrect, since both species have thin-walled, polygonal zocecia, with no mesopores in the case of the former and very few angular young cells in the latter. The figure shows rounded or irregular zocecial apertures with subcireular mesopores at their junction angles.
J. F. James in 1895 states, in his remarks under the description of Monticulipora selwyni, that M. (Prasopora) selwynit var. hospitalis Nicholson (now Prasopora hosprtalis) is the same as J. turbinata (James), and that an examination of the internal structure of the two shows their identity beyond a doubt. This author evidently did not base his observations upon the figured types of JZ. ( Chaetetes) turbinata, inasmuch as their internal structure, although different in each speci- men, is totally distinct from Nicholson’s species. Moreover, the last was described by the elder James as Monticulipora winchelli. To add to the confusion, Nickles and the writer very unwisely recorded, as cited above in the synonymy, Chaetetes turbinatum as a valid species of the genus JMonotrypa, making Ulrich’s Monotrypa subglobosa a synonym.
To sum up, the first definition of Chaetetes turbinatum is worthless, while the second is based upon two distinct species. These two forms, however, can not be correctly determined from the published figures, since the enlarged view of the surface—the only figure given that might be of any value—is an incorrect representation. Finally, a
« Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, pl. 1.
ee acervulosa Ulrich, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Minnesota, Final. Rept., III, Pt. 1, 1898, p. 318, pl. xxvny, figs. 24, 25.
ae subglobosa Ulrich, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., I, 1879, p. 129, pl. xu, figs. 11-11.
* 3 \
No. 1442, JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 398
species with internal and also external characters different from either of the figured types is stated to have the same internal features. It is work of this character that is so disheartening to the conscientious student. That James’s species does not deserve recognition need hardly be stated.
COELOCLEMA ALTERNATUM (James).
Ceramopora alternata JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 5.
Monticulipora ( Fistulipora) alternata JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 34, pl. 1, figs. 5-5).
Coeloclema alternatum NickiEs and Bassuer, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 212.
Diamesopora vaupeli Uiricn, Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 468, pl. xxxrx, figs. 3-3b; pl. x11, figs. 4-4c.
Original description.—* Polyzoary consisting of hollow, branching, cylindrical, or compressed stems from one to four lines in diameter, with irregular swellings; the hollows filled with foreign matter (clay). Cell apertures of the most perfect specimens, elevated, oblique, arched, subcircular, or oval; five or six in the space of a line, including the interspaces; generally arranged in alternating rows, sometimes in a diagonal manner around the branches. Spaces between the cells equal to their diameter, or a little more or less on different examples. Slightly cut longitudinal sections of some specimens show the cells arranged in diagonal, alternating rows of a lozenge-shape, with minute interstitial pores. Distributed over the surface about two lines apart are spots, sometimes slightly elevated, bearing fewer cell apertures and more or less of the small pores. The surface of worn or weath- ered examples—mostly so found—are nearly smooth; destitute in most cases of prominent cell mouths, but show more minute interstitial tubes and divisions than perfect specimens.”
The characters of this species are well brought out in Mr. James’s earliest description, quoted above, and there should be no difficulty in recognizing the form. The illustrations given by James and James in 1888 are of little value, and for a good description and trustworthy figures the student is referred to Ulrich’s work in 1890.
The slender, hollow-stemmed branches, with thick-walled, oval zoce- cia arranged in diagonally intersecting lines and arched over by prom- inent hoods—the lunaria—causes the recognition of the species to be an easy matter.
Occurrence.—C. alternatum is found usually in great abundance wherever the Southgate and McMicken members of the Eden shale are exposed at Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity.
Proce. N. M. vol. xxx—06——3
34 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
COELOCLEMA OWENI (James). Plate VI, figs. 5, 6.
Fistulipora oweni JAmMes, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VIT, 1884, p. 21, fig. 2-29.
Monticulipora (Fistulipora) oweni JAMES and JAmeEs, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 34.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VITI, 1896, p. 119.
Coeloclema oweni NickLES and Bassurr, Bull. U. S$. Geol. Surv., No. 173, 1900, p. 212.
The hollow, contorted or utricular stems of this form are so differ- ent in growth alone from the other species of the genus that its iden- tification is quite easy, The figures of the type specimen given by James are sufficient for the recognition of the species, but one of its most marked characteristics—an unusually prominent lunarium—has not been pointed out by its author. The lunaria are so strongly developed and sharply raised that the zoarial surface is fairly rough- ened by them. The lunarium is shown exceptionally well in tangen- tial sections where the zocecia are seen to be so indented with it as to be bilobed. In shape the lunarium is semicircular with the ends pinched slightly together. The other internal characters are essen- tially the same as in the remaining species of Coeloclema.
Oecurrence.—A characteristic and quite abundant fossil of the Mt. Auburn beds. Lebanon, Ohio, is the type locality, but Cincinnati, Ohio, Madison, Indiana, and other localities exposing this horizon, furnish specimens.
DEKAYELLA ULRICHI (Nicholson). Plate II, figs. 3, 4. Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) ulrichii NicHotson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 131, fig. 22. Dekayella ulricht Utricn, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VI, 1883, pp. 91, 158. Monticulipora ohioensis JAMES, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VII, 1884, p. 1387, pl. vu, figs. 1, la.—James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 183.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VI, 1894, p. 207. Dekayella robusta Foorp, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), XIII, 1884, p. 341, pl. xu, figs. 2-2d. Dekayella ulrichi-robusta NicKLEs and Bassuer, Bull. U. S. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 228.
Monticulipora ohioensis was distinguished by its author from JZ. ulrichi, because (1) its interstitial tubes (mesopores) were less closely tabulated than those of the latter species; (2) it had a more robust habit of growth, and (3) conspicuous monticules were present. The first distinction is based on erroneons’ observation, since the tabulation of the mesopores of the types of J/. vh/oens/s is precisely the same as in typical examples of DP. ulrichi (see Plate II). The more robust growth and conspicuous monticules are characters of such minor importance that they are scarcely worthy of.even varietal recognition.
"no. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 35
Experience shows that this is true, especially in species of Dehayella and related genera of the Fleterotrypidx. Nicholson figured branches of his species with a smooth surface, but every variation from this to sharply monticulated examples may be found. Foord“ described this sharply monticulated form as Dehayella robusta and Nickles and the writer, in their Synopsis, recognized his species as a variety of D. wrichi, with James’s name as a synonym. For the reasons mentioned, D. robusta is now regarded as not even of varietal importance. Occurrence.—A characteristic and exceedingly common fossil in the Eden shale of most localities in the Ohio basin. The types of JZ. ulrichi, and also of M. ohioensis and D. robusta came from Cincinnati,
Ohio.
DEKAYIA MACULATA James. Plate II, figs. 13, 14.
Dekayia maculata Jamns, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p- 36. Monticulipora (Dekayia) maculata J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1896, p. 116, fig. 11.
This is one of the best marked species of the genus Dekayia and Inay easily be recognized from the figures published by J. F. James in 1896 (after an unpublished plate by Ulrich). The study of many specimens of this species has indicated that its principal specific charac- ter is not, as stated by both the elder and younger James, the presence of macule composed of mesopores alone. James's two type specimens, it is true, show such macule in a marked degree, but in many other examples from the same bed and locality, otherwise indistinguishable, the macule are composed only of zocecia larger than the average, and with other specimens every gradation between the two may be estab- lished. J. F. James states in his description (1896), ‘‘ walls of coral- lites thin, internal structure unknown,” and yet gives at the beginning of this same description, figures showing all of the internal characters, and particularly the unusually reat peripheral thickening of the walls. This latter feature is the specific character which will readily Separate D. maculuta from other species of the genus.
The ramose zoarium, thick zocecial walls, conspicuous acanthopores, few and delicate diaphragms and practical absence of mesopores together with the size of the zowcia—8 in 2mm.—form a combination of characters which will readily separate D. maculata from all asso- ciated bryozoa. Views illustrating the structure and thickness of the walls, the distribution of acanthopores, mesopores, and diaphragins, and other internal features are given on Plate LI.
Occurrence.—Quite an abundant and characteristic fossil of the McMicken member of the Eden at Cincinnati and Vicinity. James’s types were from Loveland, Ohio.
“Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist (5), XIII, 1884, p. 341.
>
7.
36 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSE UM. VoL. XXX.
DICRANOPORA MEEKI (James).
Se
Plate V, fig. 1. Helopora meeki J AMES, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 3.
Original description.—** Polyzoary consisting of very small cylin- drical or subcylindrical stems; sometimes branching dichotomously. About 6 cells in the space of a line measuring their longer axes, and - arranged in rows between strong elevated longitudinal lines. The cells are generally opposite each other in the rows, but sometimes are alternating; cell apertures long oval, margins not raised; length of fragments observed from one-fourth to one-half an inch; diameter one-fifth of a line.”
The original and only description of this species, quoted above, is good as far as it goes, but fails to state the two most important features, namely, that the zoarium is bifoliate and is also jointed. Its zocecial structure is that of the family Rhinédictyonide, and this fact together with the jointed zoarium causes the reference of the species to the genus Dicranopora. As in all species of this genus, the zoarium of D. meeki consists of either simple or dichotomously branched segments with the lower end of each pointed for articulation and the upper end or ends excavated to receive the pointed extremity of the following seoments.
D. mecki may be distinguished from all other species of Decranopora by its comparatively long and extremely narrow segments, their aver- age length being 5.8 mm. and width about .4 mm. Four rows of zoecia generally occupy each face of a segment, but sometimes only three are found.
Occurrence.—The species was listed by James as from Warren County, Ohio, but his label states Cincinnati as the locality for the type. Specimens occur often quite abundantly in the Mt. Hope mem- ber in the vicinity of Cincinnati.
ESCHAROPORA ACUMINATA (James).
Ptilodictya acuminata J Ames, Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1875, p. 3.
Escharopora acuminata ULRICH, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv., Minnesota, Final Rep., III, Pt. 1, 1893, —p. 167.
Compare Ptilodictya faleiformis NicHoison, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (4), XV, 1875, p. 177, pl. x1v, figs. 1-16.
The types of James Ptilodictya acuminata prove to be of a sword- shaped Lxcharopora from the Eden shales. To point out constant dif- ferences between this form and Escharopora (Ptilodictya) falei formes from the Fairview formation is very difficult if not impossible and James’s name is adopted here as a convenient term for the Eden shale form of this type of Ascharopora rather than as that of a good species. James distinguished his species front Nicholson’s by its narrower and
"No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 37
relativeiy thicker form and more gradual expansion from the pointed striated base. These differences, however, are maintained only by his three type specimens. A larger number of specimens shows that the zoarium varies from narrow blades less than 2 mm. at their greatest width to sword-shaped fronds 6 mm. wide. However, specimens of the latter dimension are rare in the Eden shale, while the Fairview species is seldom of less width. . fale/formis is evidently a descen- dant and a more robust form of 2. acuminata.
Occurrence.—Not uncommon in the Eden shale at Cincinnati and vicinity.
ESCHAROPORA HILLI (James).
Ptilodictya hilli JAmEs, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 4.
Prilodictya hilli Unricn, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, pl. vu, figs. ent als
Ptilodictya hilli Nerrtrrotn, Kentucky Fossil Shells, 1885, p. 30, pl. xxxv, figs. ie, 4,5.
Eischaropora hilli Uuricn, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Sury. Minnesota, Final Rep., [1 Pt. 1, 1893, ‘p.. 162:
,
The specific character of this fine species was pointed out by Mr. James in his description as follows: ‘tThe marked and decided differ- ence between this species and P[tilodictya| falce/formis Nicholson lies in the prominent transverse ridges.” The zoarium in this form, how- ever, is usually wider and stronger than in Lscharopora falciformis, but as already mentioned the transverse ridges are the most obvious difference. These ridges are formed by the elevated macule, which are so transversely elongated that they become confluent.
Occurrence.—The type specimen is said to have been found on the bank of the Ohio River at Cincinnati. Evidently it was drifted here, inasmuch as the Fairview rocks have furnished all other specimens known to the writer. The type does not belong to the James col- lection, so whether it occurred 7m situ at Cincinnati in the Trenton outcrops along the river bank or was washed down from some geolog- ically higher locality could not be determined.
ESCHAROPORA PAVONIA (D’Orbigny).
Ptilodictya pavonia D’Orpiany, Prodr. de Pal., I, 1849, p. 22.
Monticulipora ( Monotrypa) pavonia NicHoison, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 195. fig. 41, pl. vi, figs. 3, 3a.
Stictopora clathratula James, Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1871.
Chextetes ? cluthratulus NicHouson, Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, XXX, 1874, p. 509, pl. xxx, figs. 1-1b.
Chetetes ? clathratulus NicHo.son, Geol. Sury. Ohio, Pal., II, 1875, p. 209, pl. xxi, figs. 2-2h.
Chetetes clathratulus NicHotson, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (4), X VIII, 1876, p. 91, pl. v, figs. 9, 9ae
. James’s name Stictopora clathratula was published without descrip- tion and is therefore a nomen nudum. As indicated above, Nicholson
a :
38 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
described the species using James’s specific name, and as his deserip- tions are based on typical Ascharopora pavonia, James’s name is also made synonymous with this species.
D’Orbigny’s species is distinguished from the other forms of /scha- ropora by its broad zoarium. It is a common fossil and is found at most localities in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee where the beds of the Fairview formation are exposed.
EURYDICTYA MULTIPORA (Hall?) Ulrich. Plate, hess i ei2: Phxnopora multipora Hawi, Foster and Whitney’s Rep. Geol. Lake Superior Land District, Pt. 2, 1851, p. 206, pl. xxrv, figs la, b. Phxnopora? multipora Utricu, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, p. 171, pl. vu, figs. 7-7). Burydictya multipora Uiricn, Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 520. Ptilodictya antiqua JamMEs, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 37.
The type of Pt/lodictya antiqua James is identical with the specimens figured and described by Ulrich in 18824 as Phenopora ? multipora Hall. As admitted by Ulrich in 1893, an examination of the internal characters of Hall’s type specimen is necessary before it can be posi- tively stated that his identification is correct. Until this is done, the synonymy had best remain as given above. For the identification of the species, at least the Kentucky form, Ulrich’s description and figures should be consulted.
Occurrence.—Hall’s types were found in Trenton strata along the Escanaba River, Michigan, while those of James and Ulrich came from the Lexington limestone in the vicinity of Harrodsburg and Burgin, Kentucky, respectively.
FISTULIPORA ? MULTIPORA James.
Fistulipora? multipora James, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 2.
In 1888 James and James decided that /“stulipora multipora James and Chiloporella (Fistulipora) flabellata Ulrich were synonymous with Ceramopora nicholsoni James published in 1875. The specimens in the James collection labelled as the types of /” mu/tipora, however, consist of the following:
(1) Twenty-one specimens of Ceramoporella distincta Ulrich from the Eden shale at Cincinnati and vicinity.
(2) Six typical examples of Chiloporella flabellata Ulrich.
If the majority ruled in such cases, F. multipora would certainly not be a synonym of (. n/cholsont as decided by James. However, in view of the facts (1) that the name was placed in synonymy by its author, (2) that the types represent two distinct and well-defined species, and (3) that the original diagnosis is not only insufficient, but
« Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, p°171.
;
: :
_Z
No, 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 39
also would apply equally to most of the species of Ceramoporella and related genera, the name had better be abandoned. Further remarks
on this species are given in the discussion of Ceramopora nicholsoni.
FISTULIPORA SILURIANA James.
Fistulipora siluriana James, Paleontologist, No. 3, 1879, p. 19.
In the revision of the Monticuliporide in 1888, James and James concluded that this species was a synonym of C. nécholsoni and repre- sented a stage in which the intercellular spaces were thick and the interstitial cells few in number. The type lot contains typical speci- mens of the following:
(1) Four specimens of Ceramoporella distincta Ulrich from the Eden shale at Cincinnati or vicinity.
(2) One specimen of Coeloclema commune Ulrich from the Economy member.
(3) Two specimens of Chiloporella flabellata Ulrich from the Corry- ville member.
The original diagnosis is of little value, and moreover is not borne out by the majority of the type specimens, the first four specimens having thin-walled zocecia and rather numerous mesopores instead of the opposite. The same reason for abandoning the name may be invoked here as in the case of /” multipora and C. nicholsoni, both of which see for further remarks.
HELOPORA APPROXIMATA James.
Helopora approximata JAMeEs, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1875, p. 3.
Original description.—* Associated with this species [Helopora parvula| are cylindrical examples with one or two more rows of cells, and bulbous upper terminations; the bulbs carry very small pores, which are not on other parts of the fossil; in other features they do not seem to differ from HZ. parvul1. Should these prove, on further investigation, to be distinct, I propose the name /felopora approximata.”
The writer has failed to find specimens having the characters men- tioned above either on the slabs containing the types of //elopora par- vula or in the rest of the collection. However, specimens of small species of Lythopora are often found showing a bulbous extremity as described by James, and undoubtedly he had some of these before him. This bulbous extremity is probably due to abortive growth following some injury and since it is occupied solely by small cells may be regarded as analogous to the expanded base of the zoarium.
Helopora approwmata is probably a synonym of the common Utica form, Bythopora arctipora (Nicholson), but in the absence of the types or other specimens bearing this name it is impossible to decide the
ae
40 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
point satisfactorily. Besides, James may or might have included several or indeed all of the small species of Bythopora (B. arctipora, parvula, dendrina, striata and delicatuia) under his name. For these and other obvious reasons the name should have no standing.
HELOPORA HARRISI (James) Ulrich.
Plate VII, fig. 8.
Helopora harrisi JAmes, Paleontologist, No. 7, 1883, p. 58, pl. 1, figs. 2-26. Helopora harrist Utricn, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Minnesota, Final Rep., ITI, Pt. 1, 1893, p. 195, pl. m1, figs. 116, 11e, 12.
The description and figures of this characteristic and abundant Rich- mond species given by Mr. James are incorrect in so many details that it is doubtful if the form could be recognized from his work. The pubtished knowledge of the species really dates from Ulrich’s work in 1893, when this author gave a good description and figures which accu- rately represent the form. It is unnecessary to mention the incorrect details of James’s description and figures, since a comparison with Ulrich’s work, which is known to be correct by comparison with his types, will bring out the errors of the former.
Occurrence.—This species is a characteristic fossil of the Waynes- ville formation of the Richmond group, the type specimens of both James and Ulrich coming from Waynesville, Ohio. Often when the clay above the limestone layers bearing the species is washed, free joints of the dismembered zoaria are found literally by the million.
HEMIPHRAGMA WHITFIELDI (James). Plate LI, figs. 15, 16; plate IV, figs. 1-4; plate V, fig. 5.
Cheetetes barrandi ? (NtcHOLson) JAMEs, Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1875, p. 4.
Monticulipora ( Cheetetes) whitfieldi JAMEs, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 34.
Monticulipora whitfieldi James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 178.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VI, 1894, p. 200.
Hemiphragma whitfieldi Nickutes and Basster, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Surv., No. 173, 1900, p. 286.
All of the previous descriptions of this fine species fail to reveal its chief characteristic, namely, the presence of semidiaphragms in the peripheral region. These structures occur in the original types and may be readily observed in all thin sections, both vertical and tangen- tial. These incomplete partitions may also be seen on well preserved, clean specimens with the aid of a hand lens. Vertical fractures when moistened and examined with a glass likewise show these partitions very clearly. .
The species is found generally in abundance wherever the lower and middle divisions of the Eden shale are exposed in the vicinity of Cin- cinnati. The zoarium of the form found in the lower division, from which James’s types of the species were derived, is of rounded, fre-
z
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 41
quently dividing stems commonly varying between 4 and 8 mm. in diameter. The middle Eden form, however, is more robust, the branches being subcylindrical or compressed and usually over 10 mm, in width. In all other respects the two forms are alike.
Surface smooth, with maculee composed of zocecia larger and meso- pores more numerous than in the intervening spaces. Zocecia large, rather thin-walled, polygonal, 5 of the normal size in 2mm. Meso- pores angular, few among the ordinary zocecia, more numerous in the macule. Acanthopores seemingly absent and, if developed at all, small and inconspicuous.
In internal structure the most marked feature is the presence of semi- diaphragms in the peripheral region of the zocecial tubes. Besides these, vertical sections as well as vertical fractures show the zoccial walls in the axial region to be strongly crinkled. The zocecial tubes in this region are almost entirely without diaphragms. The mesopores which develop in the peripheral region only, are crossed by the usual straight complete tabule. Tangential sections show thin-walled polyg- onal zocecia, few mesopores and apparent absence of acanthopores, but bring out especially the dark line separating adjoining zocecia.
H. whitfieldi is closely related to and is probably a descendant of the Trenton species /emiphragma tenuimurale Ulrich,” but the more robust growth and several internal features, particularly the crinkled walls, of the species under consideration will suffice in distinguishing the two. Of associated bryozoa none approaches //. whitfieldi closely enough to require comparison.
Occurrence.—Abundant and characteristic of the lower (Economy) and middle (Southgate) divisions of the Eden shale at Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity.
HOMOTRYPA WORTHENI (James).
Monticulipora (Monotrypa) wortheni James, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 50; INOW 7, 18835) plea, fies 2:
Monticulipora worthent James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 184, pl. 11, figs. 3a, b.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p. 207.
Homotrypa wortheni Bassurr, Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., XX VI, 1903, p. 583, pl. xxrv, figs. 10-14.
Both the internal and external features of this species were described and illustrated by the writer in 1903,’ this conception of the species being based upon specimens in the collection of the U. 5. National Museum with Mr. James’s labels attached. A comparison of these specimens with the types shows that all are of the same species.
H. wortheni is a characteristic fossil of the Whitewater member of
« Ulrich, Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Minn., Final Rep., III, Pt. 1, 1893, p. 301, pl. xxiv, figs. 20-23. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XX VI, 1903, p. 583.
49 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
the Richmond group and is found generally in abundance wherever these strata are exposed. The species may be distinguished from
associated bryozoa by its sharply tuberculated branches, while vertical -
fractures examined under a hand lens will show the cystiphragms in the peripheral region of the tubes and other features characterizing Tomotry pa.
Occurrence.—Richmond group, Whitewater member. The types are from Lynchburg, Ohio, but the species is abundant at many locali- ties in Ohio and Indiana and notably so at Richmond, Indiana, and Vicinity.
LEPTOTRYPA CLAVACOIDEA (James).
Cheetetes clavacoidens JAMES, Catal. Lower Sil. Foss., 1871, p. 1 (named only); Catal. Foss. Cincinnati group, 1875, p. 1. Monticulipora (Monotrypa) clavacoidea NicHotson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p- 182, fig: 37. Leptotrypa clavacoidea Unricn, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VI, 1883, p. 159. Monticulipora clavacoidea JAMES and JAmes, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 25.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VIII, 1895, p. 84. The club-shaped zoarium and the absence of mesopores cause the recognition of this species to be comparatively easy. James gave a brief description in 1875, but the knowledge of the species is really based on Nicholson’s full description and figures published in 1881. An abundant and characteristic fossil of the Corryville member, McMillan formation, Cincinnati and vicinity.
OCCUPPENCE.
LIOCLEMELLA SUBFUSIFORMIS (James). Plate VII, figs. 4-7.
Monticulipora (?Monotrypa) subfusiformis JAMEs, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 52; No. 7, 1883, pl. 1, fig. 1.
Monticulipora fusiformis (not WHITFIELD sp.) JAMES and Jamgs, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 26.—J. F. James, Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1895, p. 83.
Lioclemella subfusiformis NickLEs and Bassuer, Bull. U. 8S. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 808.
James and James in 1888“ regarded this species as synonymous with Whittield’s Monticulipora fusiformis,’ but a comparison of specimens of the latter with the types of JZ. subfusiform/s shows that Whittield’s species has a much larger zoarium, conspicuous and numerous acan- thopores, more rounded zocecia, and many more mesopores.
Zoarium small, generally less than 13 mm. in length, club shaped, pointed at the lower end probably for articulation with a basal expan- sion, expanding slightly toward the upper portion. Surface smooth, macule inconspicuous. Zooecia small, 10-12 in 2 mm., angular, thin- walled, sometimes in contact but generally separated by thin-walled,
«Jour. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., X VIII, 1895, p. 83. 6Ann. Rep. Geol. Surv. Wisconsin for 1877, 1878, p. 70.
;
|
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 43
angular mesopores. The latter often attain the size of the zocecia and, especially in thin sections, may be mistaken for them. However, a glance at the tabulation shown in vertical sections will distinguish the two, the mesopores being closely tabulated and the zocecia having no diaphragms at all. In tangential sections the outer side of the walls of the zocecia are always more or less conyex, while the sides of the mesopores are correspondingly concave. Acanthopores small and usually inconspicuous both at the surface and in sections.
The small, unbranched, club-shaped zoarium with thin-walled poly- gonal zocecia separated by more or less numerous mesopores, causes the separation of this species from associated bryozoa to be quite easy. Comparison with the related form LZ. fus/formés from the Richmond group of Wisconsin is given above.
Occurrence. —Quite abundant in the Waynesville formation of the Richmond at a number of localities in Ohio and Indiana. The James types were found at Westboro, Ohio.
MONOTRYPA UNDULATA var. HEMISPHERICA (J. F. James).
Monticulipora (Monotrypa) undulata (part) Nicnouson, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 170, fig. 33a—e.
Menticulipora undulata var. hemispherica J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, 1893, p. 157, figs. 10a-—c.
Monotrypa undulata-hemispherica Nickurs and Bassuer, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 178, 1900, p. 317.
This variety is founded upon Nicholson’s description and figures“ of what he regarded as a ‘trounded or irregularly spheroidal” form of his Monotrypa undulata. There are no specimens of this variety in the James collection, nor is it known that either the species or vari- ety occur in the vicinity of Cincinnati. If James’s subordinate name, which is a misnomer, the form being subglobular and not hemispheric, is to be recognized, it must rest upon the Canadian types in Nichol- son’s collection. Until these or other authentic examples are again studied, the status of the name can not be definitely determined. It may be remarked, however, that this supposed subglobular variety of M. undulata must be very near, if indeed not identical, with Ulrich’s M. subglobosa.
Occurrence. Hudson River group in Ontario, Canada.
Nicholson’s specimens are said to come from tne
MONTICULIPORA CINCINNATIENSIS (James).
Chetetes cincinnatiensis James, Catal. Sil. Foss., Cincinnati group, 1875, p. 2.
Monticulipora cincinnatiensis James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p.470.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p- 188.
Monticulipora ( Perdnopora) cincinnatiensis NicHoison, Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 226, pl. 11, figs. 6-6¢.
@Genus Monticulipora, 1881, p. 170.
44 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
Although Mr. James gave a fair definition of this species in the Catalogue,” our knowledge of the form really dates from Nicholson’s work in 1881. ;
The species is a rather abundant and characteristic fossil of the Cor- ryville member, and may be distinguished from other forms of the genus by its loosely incrusting habit of growth, strong and closely set monticules, and numerous mesopores. Its internal characters are those of a typical Monticulipora, cystiphragms occurring in both the immature and mature regions, while the walls have the peculiar granulose structure characterizing that genus.
Occurrence.—Corryville member, McMillan formation, Cincinnati, Ohio, and vicinity.
MONTICULIPORA CLEAVELANDI James.
Monticulipora ( Heterotrypa ?) cleavelandi JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 49, Did, Hed.
Monticulipora cleavelandi JAmMEs and JAmgEs, Jour. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 15, pl. 4, fig. 4.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VIII, 1895, p. 68.
Monticulipora cleavelandi Unricn and BasstEer, Smithsonian Misc. Coll. (Quart. issue), XLVII, 1904, p. 16, pl. vi, figs. 4-6.
This is one of the most easily recognized bryozoa of the Cincinnati rocks, inasmuch as it is the only ramose species of Jonticulipora so far known from these strata. A vertical fracture when examined under the hand lens will show the presence of cystiphragms in both the axial and peripheral regions, thus indicating its generic position under Monticulipora. The specitic characters are particularly the ramose habit of growth and the absence of mesopores.
Ulrich and the writer” have recently redefined this species and given figures of the internal structure. None of the James descriptions are adequate for the recognition of the species, inasmuch as the method of growth and internal characters attributed to it by them do not agree with the specimen marked as the type. This reason would doubtless have justified the rejection of the name, but as the species
had not been described in the meantime it was deemed advisable to’
establish it under the same name proposed for it by James. Oceurrence.—V ery abundant at several localities in Clinton County, Ohio, where the Whitewater formation of the Richmond group is exposed. James’s type is from a locality near Lynchburg, Highland County, Ohio.
«Catal. Sil. Foss., Cincinnati group, 1875, p. 2. b> Smithsonian Mise. Coll., NLVII, 1904, p. 16.
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER.
—
MONTICULIPORA CLINTONENSIS James.
Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) clintonensis JAmEs, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 45, (OLE asia ee
Monticulipora clintonensis JAMES and JAmes, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 20, pl. 1, figs. 1, la.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1895, p. 73.
The types of this form are missing, and unless they are found at some later date it will be impossible to determine its exact status.
However, the description of J/. clintonensis leads the writer to believe
that Mr. James had before him specimens of the species described by Ulrich in 1879 as Atactopora subramosa,“ now referred to the genus Heterotrypa. ‘This belief is strengthened by the fact that a specimen in the collection of the U. S$. National Museum labelled by Mr. James as MW. clintonensis is atypical example of /eterotrypa subramosa.
Occurrence.—James’s types were recorded from the upper part of the Cincinnati rocks (Richmond) in Clinton County, Ohio. //etero- trypa subramosa is a common and characteristic fossil in the Richmond group of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.
MONTICULIPORA HOSPITALIS NEGLECTA James and James.
Monticulipora hospitalis var. neglecta JAMES and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 27, pl. 1, fig. 3.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VIII, 1896, p. 124.
Neither the type nor any other specimen of this variety could be found in the collection, and therefore unless the type turns up later the status of the above name can not be determined. The authors in sep- arating the variety from J/. (now Prasopora) hospitalis say that ** variety neglecta differs mainly in possessing conspicuous monticules.” If this is the only point of difference exhibited by the type specimen, var. neglecta isa synonym for the species itself since in the genus Praso- pora, aS in many other monticuliporoid genera, the monticules show a considerable variation in the same species. It is thought probable that the type specimen will show that it is not at all related to Praso- pora hospitalis, but until the figured specimen is found the name might as well be dropped. Judging from James and James’s figure, it seems not unlikely that the original may belong to Monticulipora consimilis described by Ulrich in 1882.
MONTICULIPORA PAPILLATA James and James.
Monticulipora papillata JAMES AND JAMeEs, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 23.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VIII, 1895,
p. 81 (not Nebulipora papillata McCoy). The specimens from the Cincinnati rocks, supposed by James and James to be identical with the English species Webulipora papillata
aJour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., II, 1879, p. 124, pl. xu, figs. 6-6c.
|
y
46 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXxm
McCoy can not now be located in the collection. The matter is of no consequence, however, since a fragment of McCoy’s type specimen, now in the collection of the U.S. National Museum, does not agree with any of the Cincinnatian bryozoa, and there is thus little doubt that James and James were in error.
PALESCHARA BEANI (James).
Ceramopora ? beani JAMEs, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 5.
Ceramopora ? beant JAMES, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VII, 1884, p. 23, fig. 3-3b.—J ames and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 37.
Paleschara beani Utricn, American Geologist, I, 1888, p. 186.
This fine species was so defined and figured by James in 1884 that its recognition is a matter of no difficulty. The very important fea- ture of the species was, however, not mentioned, namely, that unlike all other similar Ordovician bryozoa, macule are absent. Though the zocecia radiate from one or more initial points, the surface of the zoarium presents no indication of the clusters of larger zocecia or of mesopores that invariably mark the surface of otherwise similar Paleozoic bryozoa. In this peculiarity, as well as in all other features, the species in question is in accord with Paleschara. As remarked by James, 7. beani seems constantly to incrust the shells of Orthoceras
duser?, the most abundant cephalopod in the beds containing it. |
Indeed, this association of the bryozoan and cephalopod is so common that Hall and Whitfield“ seem to have figured P. beané as the surface ornamentation of Orthoceras duseri.
Oceurrence.—Not uncommon in the Waynesville formation ‘of the Richmond group in Ohio and Indiana. In the original description James erroneously cites the species from Cincinnati.
PHAENOPORA EXPANSA Hall and Whitfield.
Phenopora (Ptilodictya) ecpansa HALL and Wuire1e.p, Geol. Sury. Ohio, Pal., I, 1875, p. 114, pl. v, fig. 1.
Phexnopora expansa Forrsrn, Geol. Sury. Ohio, VII, 1895, p. 598, pl. xx 1x, fig. 1.
Ptilodictya platyphylla James, Paleontologist, No. 3, 1879, p. 21.
Phenopora platyphylla WELLER, Geol. Sury. New Jersey, Rept. on Pal., II, 1903, pl. xrx, figs. 5-7.
The type of James’s Ptilodictya platyphylla has recently been fig- ured by Professor Weller,’ whose figures led the writer to suspect that the species was a synonym for Phenopora expansa Halland Whit- field. An examination of the types themselves changed the suspicion to a certainty.
«Geol. Surv. Ohio, Pal., II, 1875, p. 97, pl. m1, fig. 4. bGeol. Sury. of New Jersey, Report on Pal., III, 1903.
i s
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 47
James gave a good definition of his species with the exception that he omitted stating the generic character—the presence of the two mesopores between the ends of the zocecia.
Phenopora expanse is distinguished from associated bryozoa by its broad bifoliate fronds springing from a pointed base, with oval zocecia arranged in parallel rows and with the ends of the zocecial apertures separated by two mesopores. The species is distinguished from other species of Phenopora by the broad, unbranched monticulated zoarium, and by the size of the zocecia (6.5 in 2 mm. measuring lengthwise, and 8.5 in the same space transversely).
Occurrence.—James’s types were found in the Clinton of Clinton County, Ohio, while those of Hall and Whitfield came from the corre- sponding strata at Dayton, Ohio.
PHAENOPORA FIMBRIATA (James). Plate VII, figs. 11, 12.
Ptilodictya fimbriata James, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 8.
Phenopora fimbriata Forrsrs, Bull. Sci. Lab. Denison Uniy., II, 1887, p. 161; III, 1888, pl. xv, fig. 7.
Phenopora fimbriata Forrstr, Geol. Sury. Ohio, VII, 1895, p. 599, pl. xxvint, fig. 7.
Stictopora vanclevii Haut, Twelfth Ann. Rept. Indiana Geol. Nat. Hist., 1885, p. 268, pl. xi, figs. 1, 2.
Zoarium of narrow, parallel margined, smooth, compressed, bifoli- ate branches averaging 3.5 mm. in width, and forming by frequent bifurcation a flexuous frond, which in the type specimen is about 50 mm. in height and 60 mm. wide. Margins of branches rather wide and occupied by several rows of pores similar to the mesopores placed between the ends of the zowcial apertures. These marginal pores give to the edges of the branches the very finely striated appearance men- tioned by James as the marked feature of the species. However, the number of pores along the margin can not be considered a good spe- cific character, as it depends upon the age of the zoarium, young exam- ples exhibiting few, and the oldest specimens the maximum number. The zocecial apertures are elliptical and arranged in longitudinal rows; 5 zocecia in 2 mm. measuring lengthwise, and nine rows in the same space transversely. Two pits or mesopores usually separate the ends of the zocecia, but occasionally three may be detected.
This fine, characteristic Clinton species is distinguished from the other branching forms of Phenopora by its narrow, flexous, dicho- tomously dividing branches and the general aspect of the resulting zoarium.
Oceurrence.—The type is from the Clinton formation in Clinton County, Ohio. Other localities are Dayton and Belfast, Ohio.
48 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
a a ee
PRASOPORA FALESI (James). Plate I, figs. 1-4.
Monticulipora falesi James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VII, 1884, p. 138, pl. vu, figs. 2-2d.—James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X, 1888, p. 168.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVI, 1894, p- 185.
The character relied upon by the author for distinguishing this species was the presence of a conical, sharp-pointed groove extending across the under surface. Any student of the bryozoa knows, or ought to know, that the shape of the excavation left by the object upon which zoarial growth commenced, is certainly not a specific character. The same species may select indiscriminately any foreign object such as a mollusk, brachiopod, or another bryozoan to com- mence its zoarial growth. The specimens distinguished by James as M. fulesi selected some conical shell such as //yolithes or the tapering end of a cephalopod, the impressions left of the shell after its removal not permitting of accurate determination. An examination of the types—the three specimens figured in 1884—shows that two distinet species are represented. Inasmuch as one of these is new, James’s specific name is here adopted for this form. The original of fig. 2 of the article cited above (1884) is a small but typical specimen of Praso- pora simulatrix Ulrich,® while figs. 2a—-2d represent young examples of a species differing from P. simulatrix, notably in having acanthopores and smaller zocecia.
Comparing /?. falesé and P. simulatrix the following differences are noted. In growth the latter rises into dome-shaped or petasiform masses usually 40 or 50 mm. in diameter, and with a concave base lined by a concentrically wrinkled epitheca, while mature specimens of the former are rounded or irregularly hemispherical in shape, sel- dom over 20 mm. in diameter, and do not show such a well-marked epitheca. LP. simulatrixv has about 7 of the ordinary zocecia in 2 mm., while 2. fales? shows 8 to 8% in the same space. Vertical sections bring out especially the small acanthopores of P. fu/es’, but in P. semulatrix these structures are absent. The tabulation and number and distribution of the mesopores is much alike in the two species, but the difference in growth, size of zocecia, and the development of acanthopores in one, makes their separation comparatively easy.
Occurrence.—Very abundant in the Lexington limestone of the Trenton, in the vicinity of Danville, Kentucky. James records the horizon as about that of the tops of the hills at Cincinnati, but this is undoubtedly an error, as his type specimens correspond exactly with other examples of the species found in the Trenton at Danville.
“Fourteenth Ann. Rep. Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Minnesota, 1886, p. 85.
|
\
|
Z
No, 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 49
PRASOPORA HOSPITALIS (Nicholson). Plate VII, figs. 1-3.
Monticulipora (Prasopora) selwynii var. hospitalis Nicaoutson, Genus Monticuli- pora, 1881, p. 209, fig. 45. Monticulipora ( Heterotrypa) winchelli James, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 48; No. 7, 1888, pl. 1, fig. 5. Monticulipora winchelli J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, 1895, p. 87. An example of the type specimen figured by James shows that Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) winchelli is the same as the common Rich- mond form, Prasopora hospitalis (Nicholson). In the original descrip- tion James compares his species with Nicholson’s, but states that the internal structure is very different. The tabulation of the zocecia as shown in the slide studied by James (see Plate VII, fig. 1) does appear different from that found in P. hospitalis, but. this appearance is largely due to an error in the preparation of the thin section. The zocecial tubes of P. hospitalis, when properly sectioned are always lined by cystiphragms. In James’s section of 2. winchelli, how- ever, although it exhibits all the other characters of P. hospitalis, the tabulation appears as though not including true cystiphragms but to consist entirely of merely more or less curved diaphragms. The originally sectioned specimen, as proved by a section prepared by the writer, contains an abundance of true cystiphragms, and thus is shown to be a normal example of 7. hospitalis in every respect. That James’s section appears to show a different type of tabulation is believed to result from the fact that it divided the zoarium in a direc- tion parallel with, instead of at right angles to, its growing edge. On reflection it is apparent that species such as this in which the zocecia radiate from the center toward the growing edge will exhibit their normal internal characters best in vertical sections taken along such a radius; or, in other words, at right angles to the growing edge. Thus the cystiphragms of a species will generally appear as nearly straight or more or less curved diaphragms in a section cutting them ina direction opposite to their radial arrangement. Furthermore, it is a fact that James’s section was taken from the thin outer edge of the zoarium and therefore exhibits only an immature condition of the zocecial tubes. In nearly all Monticuliporide the cystiphragms in the basal part of the zoarium are much larger and extend much farther toward the opposite side of the tube than they do in later stages of growth. Hence, in an improperly prepared vertical section of the immature region, the appearance presented by the cystiphragms is likely to be, as in James’s section, that of merely curved diaphragms. The massive growth, numerous and closely tabulated mesopores, strong acanthopores, and rounded zocecia with both cystiphragms and Proe, N. M. vol. xxx—06——4
5O PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL, XXX.
diaphragms abundantly developed, distinguish Prasopora hospitalis from associated bryozoa, while the numerous and strong acanthopores serve to separate it from other species of the genus.
Occurrence.—Abundant throughout the Richmond group at most
localities in the Ohio Basin, The type of J/. winchelli was found near Lynchburg, Highland County, Ohio.
PROBOSCINA FRONDOSA (Nicholson).
Aulopora frondosa JAmes, Additions to Catal. Foss. Cincinnati Group, 1873, p. 15 (named only).
Alecto frondosa NicHoison, Geol. Sury. Ohio, Pal., I, 1875, p. 266, pl. xxv, figs. 3-36.
Proboscina frondosa Uuricn, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Minnesota, Final Rep.., LL Bt. 151893) p. lop plan ee28:
The name Aulopora frondosa is a nomen nudum, since James never defined the species. Nicholson gives a satisfactory description and good figures of the species and credits the name to James. An excel- lent figure is given by Ulrich in the work cited above.
Oceurrence.—The typical form is not uncommon in the Corryville member of the McMillan formation at Cincinnati and vicinity.
PTILODICTYA NODOSA James.
Ptilodictya nodosa JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 3, 1879, p. 20.
Ptilodictya nodosa Utricu, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., IV, 1882, pl. vir, figs. 2, 2a.
Ptilodictya variabilis Utricn, Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 304, figs. 2a and 6).
Ptilodictya clintonensis JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 38.
Ptilodictya teres JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 5, 1881, p. 40.
As suggested by Ulrich’s name, 72. vardabilis, this is quite a variable species, the shape of the zoarium ranging from smooth, narrow, sword- shaped examples scarcely 2 mm. in width to broader nodose fronds reaching a width of 10 mm. or more. James’s type specimen of /. nodosa, an old and strongly marked specimen, was figured by Ulrich in 1882. This author in 1890 proposed the new name /*#//odictya variabilis for the species on the ground that 7”, nodosa was preoccu- pied by Hall’s Ascharopora recta var. nodosa, a New York Trenton form. At that time Ascharopora and Ptilodictya were supposed to represent the same generic type, but since Ulrich’s careful work in 1803 we know these two genera to be distinct. Hall’s species and variety being the typical forms of Ascharopora, Ptilodictya nodosa is not preoccupied and may therefore stand as a valid name.
This species is distinguished from the associated forms of /zlo- dictya by its straight, parallel-edged frond. Young specimens have a smooth surface, but after the zoarium attains a width of 3 mm. or more the macule develops as strong nodes arranged in more or less
ee
<
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. Fal
parallel longitudinal series. The internal structure is essentially the same as that figured by Ulrich for P. magnifica Miller and Dyer.“
The types of Ptilodictya clintonensis are straight, parallel-edged, smooth, unbranched fronds less than 3 mm. in width, and agree in all respects with numerous other examples regarded as young zoaria of P. nodosa.
Ptilodictya teres was distinguished by its author mainly because the zoarium in the specimen described bears ‘*six or seven rows of oval pores, on the upper part, arranged in an alternating manner between exceedingly delicate raised lines.” The general shape and a thin sec- tion of the type indicate that 7. teres also is a synonym of 7”. nodosa, being merely an unusual or perhaps abortive example of that species. The oval pores mentioned by James are of zocecia, the zocecial aper- tures being of this shape and arranged between raised lines on the striated basal parts of all ptilodictyoid bryozoa.
Occurrence.—W hitewater formation of the Richmond group. The types of P. nodosa, and also of its two synonyms, came from Clinton County, Ohio, where the species seems more abundant than elsewhere.
PTILODICTYA PLUMARIA James.
Ptilodictya plumaria JAmMeEs, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 4. Ptilodictya plumaria Unricn, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, pl. vn, figs. 1, la.
This species resembles the preceding P. nodosa in its general zocecial and surface characters, but differs in this that, instead of being sword- shaped, the zoarium expands rapidly from the pointed striated base into a leaf-like frond sometimes exceeding 25 mm. in diameter. A typical specimen of the species was figured by Ulrich.’
The three Richmond species of Ptilodictya, P. nodosa, P. plumaria, and P. magnifica Miller and Dyer, form a series, the first comprising long, rather narrow, parallel-edged fronds, the third forming broad and rather irregular expansions, while the second is intermediate in its zoarial shape. <A similar relationship. is exhibited by the three Fairview species of Hscharopora, FE. faleiformis, [. maculata, and Ef. pavonia. Inbothof these groups of bryozoathe shape of the zoarium is within reasonable limits, fairly constant, and affords a ready means of distinguishing the species.
Oceurrence.—James’s type is from Warren County, Ohio, but the
species occurs at a number of localities in southwestern Ohio and
southeastern Indiana, where the Whitewater formation of the Rich- mond, to which beds these three forms of P#lodictya are restricted, are exposed.
«Geol. Surv. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 391, figs. Lla-c. > Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, pl. vir, figs. 1, la.
59, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
PTILODICTYA WELSHI James.
Ptilodictya sp. (?) James, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 8 (name Ptilodictya welshi suggested ).
Under the caption of Ptilodictya sp. 4 James described a Clinton bifoliate bryozoan and suggested if it prove to be a distinct species that the name /¢//odictya welshi be applied to it. The type is either lost or never formed a part of the James collection, but, judging from the description, 7. we/shi is almost certainly the same species as that named and figured by Van Cleve as Aschara multifida in 1853 on the plates of fossils which he distributed about that time. Van Cleve’s figure excellently represents his species, which was later described by Hall? and is now referred to the genus Phenopora. If James’s species should prove to be the same, it ought to be considered a synonym for Van Cleve’s name since both appear in equally obscure publications and the earlier figure of the one is of more service in neon aes the form than the description of the other.
Occurrence.—Clinton formation, Clinton County, Ohio.
RHINIDICTYA PARALLELA (James). Plate LI, figs. 5-7; plate V, figs. 2, 3
Ptilodictya parallela JAMes, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 5. Rhinidictya parallela Utricn, Jour. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, p. 170. Ptilodictya granulosa JAmMes, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 4.
Original description of P¢tlodictya parallela: ** Polyzoary, a flat- tened, linear, unbranched, two-edged frond, about one line wide, longest example observed about one inch. Surface gently convex, celluliferous on both faces; edges very thin and sharp. Eight or ten alternating rows of elliptical cells arranged between longitudinal lines; one row on each edge having an oblique direction. Cell apertures not raised, five or six in the space of a line measuring longitudinally.”
Numerous intermediate specimens in the U.S. National Museum prove beyond any question that the types of Ptilodictya parallela and P. granulosa are founded upon different stages of growth of one and the same species, the type of the latter representing merely the more mature or aged stage in which numerous granules develop. The defi- nition of P. granulosa precedes that of 7. parallela in the Paleontolo- gist, but the parallel-edged branches are so marked a character in this species that the specific name calling attention to this fact is retained. All species of PRAénidictya have a granulosa stage, so that this name is without any special significance.
The straight, parallel-edged, seldom branching, bifoliate zoarium, with the zocecia arranged in longitudinal rows, is so different from associated bryozoa that no difficulty is experienced in recognizing the
“Twelfth Ann. Rep. Indiana Geol. Nat. Hist., 1883, p. 268, pl. xrv, fig. 4.
No, 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. De
species. The associated ptilodictyoids, with the exception of Sticto- porella flexuosa, may be distinguished at sight by their jointed zoaria, the articulation being at the base alone as in Ascharopora or at numer- ous points as in Arthropora. The mesopores of S. flewuosa will readily separate it from ft. parallela.
Lower beds of the Eden shale at Cincinnati, Ohio, and
Oceurrence. vicinity. RHINOPORA VERRUCOSA Hall.
Rhinopora verrucosa Haur, Nat. Hist. New York, Pal., II, 1852, p. 48, pl. xrx, fig. la—c. ; Escharina ? distorta James, Paleontologist, No. 3, 1875, p. 21.
The types of Zscharina ? distorta show that this name is founded upon specimens of the characteristic Clinton bryozoan Ainopora ver- rucosa. The specimens are embedded in solid limestone and show only their epithecal side. In breaking the rock, the two leaves of the bifoliate fronds of RA‘nopora part along the smooth median plane because the poriferous side of each leaf is rougher, and therefore adheres to the rock. By means of thin sections, however, the iden- tity of these fronds with Rhinopora verrucosa was proved beyond a doubt.
Occurrence.—The types of James’s species were from the Clinton, near Wilmington, Clinton County, Ohio. 2. verrucosa is found gen- erally in abundance at most localities in the New York and Ohio areas of Clinton shale.
SAGENELLA STRIATA James.
Sagenella striata JAMES, Paleontologist, No. 3, 1879, p. 22.
The type specimens described under this name by Mr. James are two small thin expansions parasitic upon bryozoa from the Eden shale. The surface of these expansions is ornamented with long, fine strie radiating froma similarly striated crater-like central area. A careful examination of this surface with a lens, or, better still, of the structure of the specimens by means of thin sections under the micro- scope, shows that the strix are the greatly elongated and generally confluent zocecial apertures of bryozoa with the wall structure charac- teristic of the genus Escharopora. One can now infer from their gen- eral shape and structure that the crater-like depressions of these striated parasitic growths are the basalesockets with which the pointed end of the zoaria of “scharopora articulated. That this inference is correct is proved by the occasional discovery of a zoarium with its point in place in the basal socket or in such close proximity that their relation to each other can not be doubted. It is also a fact that wherever these attached expansions occur, the erect fronds of one or other of the species of Hscharopora may always be found.
By themselves these basal sockets show no specific differences, and the species to which any particular specimen belongs must be deter-
—
54 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XK
mined by the horizon in which it occurs. Naturally when several species of Aschuropora occur at the same horizon, the determination of their respective basal sockets becomes very difficult if not impos- sible unless the pointed zoarium and parasitic base are still in position. There can be little doubt that Sagenclla striata is the articulating basal expansion of “scharopora acuminata (James), since the latter is the only species of “scharopora known in the same beds of the Eden shale.
Depending upon James’s statement” that his specimens were col- lected ‘‘at the horizon of the hilltops at Cincinnati,” Nickles and the writer, in the cross references in their Synopsis of American Fossil Bryozoa, referred Sagenella striata to the Fairview species /scharo- pord, falerform is. However, this reference and remarks concerning the organism were inadvertently omitted under the synonymy of the latter. The articulating bases of 7. falciformis were described by Ulrich under the names Crateripora lineata and yar. expansa?’ betore their true relations, as published by him in 1882,° were ascertained.
- - 7
STICTOPORELLA FLEXUOSA James. ,
Ptilodictya flexuosa James, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 4.
Stictoporella flecuosa Unricn, Jour. ‘Cincinnati Bae. I Nat. Hist., V, 1882, p. 169.
Stictoporella interstincta Uutricw, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., V, 1882, p. 169, pl. vin, figs. 9, 9a.
Stictoporella interstincta Unricn, Geol. Sury. Illinois, VIII, 1890, p. 394, fig. 14a, b.
a
For the identification of this species the student is referred to the description and figures of the external characters given by Ulrich in 1882, and the figures of the internal features published by the same author in 1890. Ulrich described the form as Stictoporella interstincta, believing that Pc/odictya fleruosa James was a distinct species of Stictoporella. More recent study, however, has shown that both names are founded upon unimportant mutations of the same species. —
S. flexuosa is easily recognized by its narrow, generally parallel- | edged, bifoliate branches bearing rather large elliptical, flaring zoce- cial apertures, with their ends separated always by two but sometimes by three or four elongate interstitial cells.
Occurrence.—Not uncommon in the Economy member of the Eden shales in the vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio.
pt ee
STIGMATELLA DYCHEI (James).
Plate III, figs. 8-10.
Monticulipora (Monotrypa) dychei James, Paleontologist, No. 6, 1882, p. 52.
Monticulipora dychei James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VI, 1883, p. 235, pl. x, figs. 2-2e.—James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Boe. Nat. Hist., XI, 1888, p. 25.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., X VIII, 1895, p. 83.
«Paleontologist, No. 3; 1875, p. 2 » Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. pac a. 1879, p. 30 €Idem, V, 1882, p. 151.
E No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 55
Leptotrypa ? dychei Nickugs and Basster, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 173, p. 298. Stigmatella dychei Utricw and Bassier, Smithsonian Mise. Coll. (Quart. Issue), XLVI, 1904, pl. x, fig. 11.
Both the internal and external features of this species have been figured by its author satisfactorily enough for its recognition, and additional illustrations of the internal structure are given here only to bring out points not mentioned by James nor shown in his figures.
The zoarium is an expansion loosely incrusting crinoid columns and sometimes attains considerable size, the type specimen being about 180 mm. in length and varying from a minimum diameter of 5 mm. at
the ends to a maximum of 60 mm.
In vertical sections the noticeable features are the almost complete absence of diaphragms and the development of the acanthopores in zones, the latter feature in combination with the former being the principal characteristic of the genus St¢gmatella. Tangential sections passing through one of these zones of acanthopores exhibit these struc- tures of a fair size at the zocecial angles, but a section through any other part of the zoarium shows thinner-walled zocecia with the acanthopores either very small or not present at all.
The loosely incrusting method of growth, thin-walled angular zocecia with mesopores practically wanting, the development of acanthopores in zones and the almost entire absence of diaphragms are characters causing this species to be easily recognized. S. clawis (Ulrich), a common and highly characteristic fossil of the Eden shales, also grows on crinoid columns, but it can not be confused with S. dyche7, its zoaria being much smaller and the surface nearly always spinulose.
Oceurrence.—A highly characteristic although somewhat uncommon fossil of the Mount Auburn member of the McMillan formation at Lebanon and other localities in southwestern Ohio.
STOMATOPORA DELICATULA (James).
Plate III, figs. 4-7.
Hippothoa delicatula James, Paleontologist, No. 1, 1878, p. 6.
Stomatopora delicatula NickLrs and BassuER, Bull. U.S. Geol. Sury., No. 173, 1900, p. 419.
Stomatopora proutana MiniEr, Jour. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., V., 1882, p. 39, pl. 1, figs. 446.
Stomatopora proutana Unricn, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv., Minnesota, Final Rep., DE Pt. 1893 5pe 117, pl. 1, figs. 8-12.
Rhopalonaria pertenuis Utricn, Fourteenth Ann. Rep. Geol. and Nat. Hist. Sury., Minnesota, 1886, p. 59.
Stomatopora tenuissima Uuricn, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XII, 1890, p. 175, fig. 2.
Stomatopora delicatula-tenuissima Nickurs and Bassier, Bull. U. 8. Geol. Sury., No. 178, 1900, p. 449.
Original description.—‘* Polyzoary creeping, adnate, branching dichotomously, and sometimes anastomosing. Branches linear, about
= >
a
56 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXXi
= ze 2 = : ;
one-tenth of a line in diameter. Cells uniserial, each growing by a pointed base from the cell below, and expanding gradually to the mouth; two or three cells in the space of a line. Apertures terminal, elevated, and nearly or quite the diameter of the cells and placed on | their front face.”
Mr. James’s description brings out all the essential features of this variable species. Its constant characters are the elongate, club-shaped zocecia increasing very gradually and regularly in width from the narrow proximal portion to the wider rounded anterior end, where a diameter of about .12 mm. is reached. Considerable variation occurs _ in the length of zocecia of the same zoarium, so that specific differences made upon this character can not be maintained. At certain horizons, and especially in the Corryville bed, very luxuriant growths of this form are found upon other organisms, and it is in such specimens that the greatest variation is exhibited. Mr. Miller applied the name SS, proutana to the very. elongate form from the Corryville bed at Cincin- nati, while specimens with the same characters, but coming from the lower part of the Eden shale were described as S. tenuissdia by My. Ulrich. The form with short zocecia was named Rhopalonaria per- tenuis by Mr. Ulrich, but later placed by him as a synonym of S. prou- — tuna Miller. Nickles and the writer recognized Mr. James’s name, but | considered S. tenwissima of sufficient value to rank asa variety. Fur- ther study may indicate that this latter form might still be rankxea as _ a variety instead of being considered a synonym as above. f
Occurrence. —My. James’s type lot contains specimens from various — horizons of the Covington and Richmond groups in southwestern — Ohio. The species ranges through the various divisions of the Mohawkian and Cincinnatian divisions of the Ordovician, and has also — a wide geographical distribution.
STROMATOPORA ? LICHENOIDES James.
Stromatopora ? lichenoides Jamrs, Paleontologist, No. 3, 1879, p. 18. Stromatopora ? lichenoides J. F. JAmes, Jour, Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, 1892, p. 90.
Although not described as bryozoa, the types of this species prove to belong to this class. All of the specimens are basal expansions of the articulated bryozoan Arthropora. Five of the examples are from the Richmond group and are undoubtedly the bases of a form of Arthropora shaffert found very abundantly in these rocks; the remain- ing four specimens are from the Eden shales at Cincinnati and prob- ably belong to <Arthropora cleavelandi James. Several species of Arthropora occur in the Eden, but as A. cleavelandi is the most abundant, it is most probable that the Eden specimens are of this
species.
ess eae
es | ~I
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER.
ia STROMATOPORA TUBULARIS James.
Stromatopora tubularis James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., VII, 1884, p. 139, pl. vn, figs. 3-3b.—J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, 1892, p. 89.
‘*Oylindrical or tubular, hollow, 2 to 23 inches in diameter and 1 inch or more long; laminz about one-twentieth of an inch thick, irregular, wavy, with serrate edges; interspaces thin; oscula at irregu- lar intervals; central cavity of the tube filled with broken shells, corals, or masses of clay, or sometimes entirely empty.” @
The type of this so-called Stromatopora proves to be a portion of the living chamber of a cephalopod (Orthoceras or Hndoceras), which has become encrusted by successive layers of species of bryozoa belonging: to the genus Ceramoporella. Some of these layers are of Ceramoporella distincta Ulrich, others are of C. gran ulosa-mil fordensts (James), while vertical sections indicate that C. o//oensis is also pres- ent. The ‘‘serrate edges” of the **laminze” are seen only in vertical sections or fractures. This toothed appearance is caused by the pro- jecting lunaria of each zoarial layer. The basal lamina of the succeed- ing layer touches only a few of these projecting points, the others remaining free. The ‘‘oscula” at irregular intervals are simply the clay-filled borings of worms or other burrowing organisms.
The type came from the Eden shale at Cincinnati, but similar speci- mens of incrusting Ceramoporella can be found throughout the Cin- cinnatian rocks.
STROMATOPORA LUDLOWENSIS James.
Stromatopora ludlowensis James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc.’ Nat. Hist., VII, 1884, p. 140, pl. vir, figs. 7, 7a.—J. F. Jamus, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, 1892, p. 91.
‘“Coenosteum varying in outline and size 45 by 3 inches and 2 inches thick; sometimes parasitic, and then varying from one-tenth to three-tenths of an inch thick; laminv irregular, undulating, from 4 to 6 in one-tenth of an inch, including interspaces; transverse sections show numerous circular or oval oscula (7) irregularly distributed; surface irregular and rough, showing numerous minute pores and a greater or less number of oscula.””
The ‘‘ecenosteum” of this species instead of forming a tubular struc- ture as in the preceding, grew into solid masses. Moreover, two sets of ‘‘oscula” are recognized by its author, one of them doubtful.
The type specimen is an irregular, solid mass composed of succes- sively incrusting layers of Ceramoporella, C. distincta Ulrich and C.
«Abridged description by J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, 1892, p. 89.
» Abridged rlescription by J. F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, 1892, Ds.0.,
58 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.
granilosa-mil fordensis (James) being the species observed. ‘The larger ~
>
and doubtful set of ‘‘oscula” is made up, as in S. tubularis, of clay- filled burrows, while the smaller set is composed of the mouths of the zocecia themselves. '
The species of Ceramoporella seem to have bothered Mr. James con- | siderably. This is especially true of C. disténcta, the type lots of no. less than seven of his species containing unquestionable examples of this common form. ‘
INDEX OF JAMES’S NAMES.“ : Alecto nevilis James. Callopora milfordensis James. (See Ceramoporella granulosa-milfordensis. ) Ceramopora alternata James. (See Ceeloclema alternatum. ) Ceramopora ? beani James. (See Paleschara beani. ) Ceramopora concentrica James. Ceramopora ? irregularis James. Ceramopora nicholsoni James. Ceramopora radiata James. Ceramopora whitei James. (See Ceramoporella whitei. ) : Chuetetes barrandei ? James (not Nicholson). (See Hemiphragma whitfieldi. ) Chaetetes ? calycula James. (See Aspidopora calycula. ) Chaetetes cincinnatiensis James. (See Monticulipora cincinnatiensis. ) Chaetetes ? clathratulus James. (See Escharopora pavonia. ) Chaetetes clavacoides James. (See Leptotrypa clavacoidea. ) Chaetetes clavacoideus James. (See Leptotrypa clavacoidea. ) Chaetetes crustulatus James. 4 Chaetetes discoidea James. (See Amplexopora discoidea. ) Chaetetes gracilis James. (See Bythopora gracilis. ) Chaetetes Lycoperdon (Say) James. Chaetetes lycopodites (Vanuxem) James. Chaetetes meeki James. (See Bythopora meek. ) Chaetetes minutus James. (See Bythopora arctipora. ) -g Chaetetes ? onealli James. (See Callopora onealli. ) Chaetetes petropolitanus (Pander) James. Chaetetes subrotundus James. Chaetetes turbinatum James. : Chaetetes varians James. (See Batostoma varians. ) Dekayia maculata James. Escharina ? distorta James. (See Rhinopora verrucosa Hall. ) Fistulipora ? multipora James. Fistulipora oweni James. (See Coeloclema oweni. ) Fistulipora siluriana James. Helopora approximata James. Helopora dendrina James. (See Bythopora dendrina. ) Helopora harrisi James. Helopora meeki James. (See Dicranopora meeki. ) Helopora parvula James. (See Bythopora parvula. ) Helopora tenuis James. (See Arthrostylus tenuis. ) Hippothoa delicatula James. (See Stomatopora delicatula. ) Lichenalia calycula James. (See Aspidopora catycula. )
oe = - « The species discussed in this paper are arranged alphabetically and this index is given in order to facilitate the finding of the James species as now placed.
——
ee
——————— ee
JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. hs)
Monotrypa undulata-hemispherica J. F. James.
Monticulipora calycwla James. (See Aspidopora calyecula.) Monticulipora cincinnatiensis James.
Monticulipora clavacoidea James. (See Leptotrypa celavacoidea. ) Monticulipora cleavelandi James.
Monticulipora clintonensis James.
Monticulipora communis James. (See Callopora onealli-comimunis. )
Monticulipora crustulata James.
Monticulipora discoidea James. (See Amplexopora discoidea.)
Monticulipora dychei James. (See Stigmatella dychei. )
Monticulipora eccentrica James. (See Aspidopora eccentrica. )
Monticulipora falesi James. (See Prasopora falesi. )
Monticulipora fusiformis James (not Whitfield). (See Lioclemella subfusiformis. }
Monticulipora gracilis James. (See Bythopora gracilis. )
he
Monticulipora hospitalis var. neglecta James.
Monticulipora kentuckensis James. (See Callopora multitabulata. )
Monticulipora lens James (not McCoy). (See Calloporella cireularis. ) Monticulipora mecki James. (See Bythopora meeki. )
Monticulipora ohioensis James. (See Dekayella ulrichi. )
Monticulipora onealli James. (See Callopora onealti. )
Monticulipora papillata (MeCoy) James and James.
Monticulipora petasiformis var. welchi James. (See Amplexopora petasiformis welchi. ) Monticulipora subcylindrica J. F. James. (See Amplexopora filiosa. )
Monticulipora turbinata James.
Monticulipora undulata var. hemispherica J. F. James. (See Monotrypa wndulata mispherica. )
Monticulipora varians James. (See Batostoma varians. )
Monticulipora whitfieldi James. (See Hemiphragma whitfieldi. )
Monticulipora wortheni James. (See Homotrypa wortheni. )
Monticulipora ( Chaetetes) meeki James. (See Bythopora meeki. )
Monticulipora ( Chaetetes) varians James. (See Batostoma varians. )
Monticulipora ( Chaetetes) whitfieldi James. (See Hemiphragma whitfieldi. ) Monticulipora (Dekayia) maculata James. (See Dekayia maculata. )
Monticulipora ( Fistulipora) alternata James. (See Coeloclema alternatum. ) Monticulipora ( Fistulipora) milfordensis James. (See Ceramoporella granulosa mil-
fordensis. )
co
Monticulipora ( Fistulipora) nicholsoni James.
Monticulipora oweni James. (See Coeloclema oweni. )
Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) circularis James. (See Calloporella circularis.) Monticulipora (Heterotrypa?) cleavelandi James. (See Monticulipora cleavelandi. ) Monticulipora ( Heterotrypa) clintonensis James.
Monticulipora ( Heterotrypa ?) eccentrica James. (See Aspidopora eccentrica. ) Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) onealli ? var. communis James. (See Callopora onealli mmunis. )
Monticulipora ( Heterotrypa) winchelli James. (See Prasopora hospitalis. ) Monticulipora (Monotrypa) dychei James. (See Stigmatella dychei. )
Monticulipora (Monotrypa ?) subfusiformis James. (See Lioclemella subfusiformis. ) Monticulipora (Monotrypa) welchi James. (See Amplexopora petasiformis welchi. ) Monticulipora (Monotrypa) wortheni James. (See Homotrypa wortheni. ) Ptilodictya acuminata James. (See Escharopora acuminata. )
Ptilodictya antiqua James. (See Eurydictya multipora. )
Ptilodictya? cincinnatiensis James. (See Arthropora cincinnatiensis. )
Ptilodictyu cleavelandi James. (See Arthropora cleavelandi. )
Ptilodictya clintonensis James. (See Plilodictya nodosa. )
60 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM.
Ptilodictya dubia James. (See Arthropora cleavelandi. ) Ptilodictya fimbriata James. (See Phxnopora fimbriata. ) Ptilodictya flexuosa James. (See Stictoporella flexuosa. )
_ Ptilodictya grahami James. (See Arthropora cleavelandi. ) Ptilodictya granulosa James. (See Rhinidictya parallela. ) Ptilodictya hilli James. (See Escharopora hilli.) Ptilodictya kentuckyensis James. (See Arthropora kentuckyensis. ) Ptilodictya nodosa James.
Ptilodictya parallela James. (See Rhinidictya parallela. ) Ptilodictya platyphylla James. (See Phenopora expansa. ) Ptilodictya plumaria James.
Ptilodictya teres James. (See Ptilodictya nodosa. ) Ptilodictya welshi James.
Sagenella striata James.
Stictopora clathratula James. (See Escharopora pavonia. ) Stromatopora ? lichenoides James. . Stromatopora ludlowensis James.
Stromatopora tubularis James.
EXPLANATION OF PLATES. Puate I. Prasopora falesi (James).
Fias. 1 and 2. Tangential section, x 20, and portion of same, x 35, showing the usual characters of this species as restricted and here redefined. The small acanthopores which seem to be confined to the vicinity of the maculee are especially characteristic.
3 and 4. Vertical section, x 20, and portion of same, 35, showing the tabu- lation of the zocecial tubes and mesopores and the acanthopores as they appear when cut lengthwise.
Lexington limestone, Danville, Kentucky.
Callopora multitabulata (Ulrich).
5 and 6. Views of tangential and vertical sections, 20, drawn from the same sections used by James in attempting to illustrate the internal structure of his Monticulipora kentuckensis.
7. A few zocecia of fig. 5, & 35, illustrating the minute structure of the walls.
Lexington limestone, Paris, Kentucky.
Aspidopora calycula (James).
8 and 9. Tangential section, x 20, and a portion of same, * 35, of an average |
example of this well-marked species. 10. Vertical section 20, showing as usual only a single large cystiphragm at the base of the zocecial tubes. Bromley shale, Ohio River bank, West Covington, Kentucky.
Burydictya multipora (2? Hall) Ulrich.
11 and 12. Tangential and vertical sections, 20, prepared from James’s type © of Ptilodictya antiqua and showing the usual characters of the species to |
which it is now referred. Lexington limestone, near Harrodsburg, Kentucky.
JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 61
Callopora onealli communis (James). (See also Plate IV, figs. 8 and 9.)
Fig. 13. Tangential section, x 20, of an average example, exhibiting the few meso- pores and angular zocecia marking this variety, and the wall structure of a Callopora.
MeMicken member of the Eden shale. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Puatre IT. Bythopora arctipora (Nicholson).
land 2. Tangential and vertical sections, respectively, x 20, of one of the originals of Chaetetes minutus James. The external characters as well as the internal features shown in these figures are precisely the same as in the form previously described by Nicholson as Ptilodictya aretipora. MeMicken member of Eden shale, near Loveland, Ohio.
Dekayella ulrichi (Nicholson) .
3. A few cells of a tangential section, * 35.
4. Portion of the peripheral region of a vertical section, x 20. These figures were drawn from sections prepared from the type of Monticulipora ohioensis James. The internal characters are in all respects like those of D. ulrichi.
Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Rhinidictya parallela (James).
(See also Plate V, figs. 2, 3.
5. Tangential section, 20, of stipe taken just beneath a bifurcation and show- ing the aged condition of this species distinguished by James as Ptilodictya granulosa.
6. Tangential section, 20, of a younger branch agreeing with the original of Ptilodictya parallela James.
7. Vertical section, < 20, prepared from the same specimen as fig. 6.
Economy member of Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Aspidopora eccentrica (James). (See also Plate V, figs. 7, 8.)
8 and 9. Tangential and vertical sections, 20, drawn from James’s type sections. 10 and 11. Tangential section of another specimen, * 20, and a small portion of same, X 35. 12. Vertical section, x 20, showing nearly the entire width of one of the small disks of this species. Southgate member of Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dekayia maculata (James).
13. Vertical section, x 20, of an average example, containing rather more of the extremely delicate diaphragms than usual. 14. Tangential section of same, 20, showing one of the macule which often occur, and the thick walls characterizing the species. These sections were prepared from James’s type of the species, -McMicken member of the Eden shale, Loveland, Ohio,
is >
62 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL, XXX,
q ’
Hemiphragma whitfieldi (James). (See also Plate IV, figs. 1-4; plate V, fig. 5.)
Fic. 15. Tangential section, « 20, showing many of the zocecia with sections of the semidiaphragms. Se 16. Vertical section, < 20, showing undulating walls in axial region, complete diaphragms in outer part of same and semidiaphragms in the thick-walled peripheral region. These incomplete diaphragms are distinctive of Hemi- phragma. Economy member of the Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sanaa
Ainplexopora filiosa (D’Orbigny ).
1. Taigential section, < 20, the upper half of figure showing the characters of the mature region, the lower half those of the immature zone.
2. Tangential section through the mature region, * 35, exhibiting the numer- ous acanthopores and the dark line separating adjoining zocecia.
3. Vertical section, * 12, showing two successive alternate pairs of immature and mature zones and above these a longer immature zone. The figure ~ brings out the difference in wall structure and tabulation characterizing the respective regions or zones.
Sections prepared from the figured type of Monticulipora subcylindrica James. Fairview formation, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Stomatopora delicatula (James). |
4.and 5. Portion of a zoarium X 12 and three zocecia, < 20, of the form to which | Miller applied the name S. proutana. Belleview bed of the Fairview formation, Cincinnati, Ohio. | 6. Portion of zoarium, < 12, showing variations in the length of zocecia. In many specimens the general proportions of the zocecia in the lower half of the figure is constant. Corryville bed of McMillan formation, Cincinnati, Ohio. Several zocecia, * 12, of the form named 8. tenuwissima by Ulrich. Economy member of Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio. | The specimens illustrated here were selected from the lot marked as the types of his species by Mr. James.
“I
Stigmatella dychei (James).
8. Tangential sections, 20, the upper and lower halves exhibiting the char- acters of the mature and immature regions, respectively. It should he remarked that the larger size of the zocecia in the upper half of the figure is due to the fact that it includes a large part of one of the maculee.
9. Tangential section, 50, showing minute structure of walls and acantho- pores.
10. Vertical section, < 12, passing through successive pairs of immature and mature zones. Sections prepared from James’s figured type of the species. Mt. Auburn member of the McMillan formation, Lebanon, Ohio,
JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. GF
Bythopora parvula (James). (See also Plate V, fig. 4.)
mace: 11 and 12. Tangential and vertical sections, 20, prepared from one of the types of this delicate bryozoan. McMicken member of the Eden shales, Loveland, Ohio.
Arthropora cleavelandi (James).
(See also Plate IV, fig. 6.)
13. Outline drawing of type of Ptilodictya cleavelandi James, < 2. This illus- trates the usual form of the upper segments of the zoaria of this species.
14 and 15. Outline drawings of the type specimens of P. grahami James. These are bifurcated initial segments.
16. Outline drawing of type of P. dubia James, X 2. This also is an initial seg- ment of the same species as the original of P. cleavelandi, but differs in its simple, unbifurcated, upper articulating extremity.
All of the specimens are from the Eden shales at Cincinnati, Ohio.
Puate IV. Hemiphragma whitfieldi (James).
(See also Plate II, figs. 15, 16; plate V, fig. 5.)
1 and 2. Views of two of the James type specimens, x 1.5. Economy member of Eden shales, Cincinnati, Ohio.
3 and 4. Two fragments of a more robust form of this species, 1.5. Southgate member of Eden shales, Covington, Kentucky.
Arthropora kentuckyensis (James ).
5. View of the type and only known specimen of this incompletely known species, X 6. The lower part of the specimen is broken away but doubtless was originally obtusely pointed.
Bromley shales of the Trenton, Ohio River bank, opposite Cincin- nati, Ohio.
Arthropora cleavelandi (James). (See also Plate III, figs. 13-16. )
6. A complete segment of this species, * 6, showing the comparatively slender habit of growth and the short lateral branches which diverge very nearly at right angles and are particularly characteristic.
McMicken member of the Eden shales, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Arthropora cincinnatiensis (James).
7. View of the specimen marked as the type of this species, 6. It is merely one of the separated segments but is in a good state of preservation and quite typical.
Mt. Hope member of the Fairview formation, Cincinnati, Ohio,
64 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXaie
Callopora onealli communis (James).
(See also Plate I, fig. 13.)
Fics. 8 and 9. Two fragments of this robust variety, 1.5. MeMicken member of the Eden shale, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Piate V. Ticranopora meeki (James).
1. View of a portion of the surface of the slab containing fhe types of this species, X 6. The figure contains two simple and one bifurcated segments and exhibits the elongate, narrow, subcylindrical form distinguish ng the joints of this delicate bryozoan.
Mt. Hope member of the Fairview formation, Cincinnati, Ohio. Rhinidictya parallela (James).
(See also Plate II, figs. 5-7. )
2. View of the type specimen of Ptilodictya granulosa James, * 6, showing the — thickened granulose walls found in old examples. 3. View of the type of Ptilodictya parallela James, * 1.5. It is the central stipe in the figure and party covered by the free cheek of an Acidaspis. ~ | Economy member of Eden shales, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Bythopora parvila (James). | (See also Plate III, figs. 11, 12.)
4. Surface of slab bearing type specimens, 1.5, showing several branches | within the space outlined with ink. MeMicken member of Eden shales, Loveland, Ohio.
Hemiphragma whitfieldi (James). | (See also Plate IT, figs. 15, 16; plate LV, figs. 1-4.) f
5. Perfectly cleaned surface of specimen showing semidiaphragms within zocecia, X 8. Southgate member of Eden shales, West Covington, Kentucky.
Ceramoporella whitei (James). (See also Plate VI, figs. 8-10. )
6. Surface of James’s type, < 8, showing the nearly direct apertures and incon- spicuous lunaria, which features distinguish the species from the otherwise similar C. ohioensis (Nicholson).
Corryville member of the McMillan formation, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Aspidopora eccentrica (James). (See also Plate II, figs. 8-12.)
. The underside of a specimen of this peculiar species, * by 8, showing the eccentric striation of this surface.
8. Upper, celluliferous surface of another example, 8.
Southgate member of Eden shales, Cincinnati, Ohio,
~
No. 1442. JAMES TYPES OF BRYOZOA—BASSLER. 65
Puate VI.
Callopora onealli (James).
Fias. 1 and 2. Views of two oi the type specimens, 1.5. Economy member of Eden shales, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Callopora onealli sigillarioides (Nicholson).
3and 4. Views of two typical examples, x 1.5, introduced for comparison with C. onealli. MeMicken member of Utica shales, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Coeloclema oweni (James).
5. Vertical section, > 20. 6. Tangential section, < 20, showing the large prominent lunaria and the resulting bilobed appearance of the zocecia. Mt. Auburn member, Lebanon, Ohio.
Ceramoporella granulosa milfordensis (James).
7. Tangential section of a portion of a macula, 35. In this region alone a few granules are developed. Eden shales, Milford, Ohio.
Ceramoporella whitei (James). (See also Plate V, fig. 6.)
8 and 9. Tangential sections, « 20 and 35, respectively, showing the usual aspect of this species. 10. One layer of zocecia of a vertical section, 20. Corryville member, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Prats Vil. Prasopora hospitalis (Nicholson).
1. Vertical section of the basal part of the zoarium, > 20, drawn from James’s type section of Monticulipora winchelli. The section, partly on account of an error in the preparation, shows only curved tabulee as described by Mr. James, instead of the usual cystiphragms.
2. Vertical section, * 20, exhibiting the shape and distribution of the cysti- phragms in the mature region.
3. Tangential section of the mature region, X 35. The large acanthopores especially characteristic of P. hospitalis are well brought out in the section.
Figs. 2 and 3 were drawn from thin sections prepared from the same specimen used by Mr. James in describing and illustrating his species. Richmond group, near Lynchburg, Highland County, Ohio.
Lioclemella subfusiformis (James).
4. Vertical section, x 20, of a zoarium showing the untabulated zocecia and the closely tabulated mesopores, the latter being restricted to the periph- eral region. » :
Proc. N. M. vol. xxx—06 5
66
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL, XXX.
Figs. 5 and 6. Tangential sections, X 20 and & 35. The angular thin-walled zoe cia
10.
ie
and mesopores often closely resemble each other, but the more rounded form and slightly thicker walls of the former will serve as a means of dis- tinguishing them.
. Natural size views of three of the type specimens figured by James.
Waynesville formation of the Richmond group, Westboro, Ohio.
Helopora harrisi (James).
. Two segments, < 12, from type locality (after Ulrich).
Waynesville formation of the Richmond group, Waynesville, Ohio.
Batostoma variabile Ulrich (restricted).
. Vertical section, < 20, passing through the mature and a portion of the
immature region. Tangential section, * 20, exhibiting the angular, thick-walled contiguous zocecia, the comparatively small acanthopores and the absence of mesopores. Top of Richmond group, Osgood, Indiana.
Phenopora fimbriata (James).
Outline drawing of the type specimen, the basal extremity restored; natural size.
. Tangential section of type, 20.
Clinton formation, Clinton County, Ohio.
PROCEEDINGS, VOL. XXX _ PL. |
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM
as GTN
— Fee BE tz
To
) Merrit et
pet ( KS PS AOL SS
Nea
JAMES TYPES OF ORDOVICIAN BRYOZOA.
FOR EXPLANATION OF PLATE SEE PAGES 60, 61.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM PROCEEDINGS, VOL. XXX _ PL. Il
&
&
LOS c @ 6,
sO OK y g
3 :
“Sy oe:
jf SX
= \ S {PG > a
=
= 5
JAMES TYPES OF ORDOVICIAN BRYOZOA.
FOR EXPLANATION OF PLATE SEE PAGES 61, 62.
Pe ee ed
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM PROCEEDINGS, VOL. XXX PL. III
att, PENS
tH) Ly \ y
Sai
Zo)
JAMES TYPES OF ORDOVICIAN BRYOZOA.
FOR EXPLANATION OF PLATE SEE PAGES 62, 68.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM PROCEEDINGS, VOL. XXX PL. IV
JAMES TYPES OF ORDOVICIAN BRYOZOA.
FOR EXPLANATION OF PLATE SEE PAGES 63, 64.
Ah ek ne PCS Na hel ng Satay Mi eal AO! At CTL ALLOA SM .
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM PROCEEDINGS, VOL. XXX PL. V
JAMES TYPES OF ORDOVICIAN BRYOZOA.
FoR EXPLANATION OF PLATE SEE PAGE 64.
yee Pe hy . { + ee ca Pu
PROCEEDINGS, VOL. XXX PL. VI
-U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM
JAMES TYPES OF ORDOVICIAN BRYOZOA.
For EXPLANATION OF PLATE SEE PAGE 65.
a
Pa oe ta
PROCEEDINGS, VOL. XXX PL. VIl
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM
JAMES TYPES OF ORDOVICIAN AND SILURIAN BRYOZOA.
65, 66.
THE LIFE HISTORY OF THE CAVE SALAMANDER, SPE- LERPES MACULICAUDUS (COPE).
By Artruur M. Banta and Waxpo L. McATEr.
Of the University of Indiana.
During the past two years the senior author has been engaged in a study of the animal ecology of Mayfield’s cave, near Bloomington, Indiana. An attempt has been made to work out the distribution, life history, etc., of as many of the species inhabiting that cave as possi- ble. The present paper is an excerpt from the larger one and gives the results of the work on the common cave salamander. It is based largely upon collections made by the authors, but free use has been made of material contained in the United States National Museum.
GENERAL ACCOUNT. REFERENCES TO LITERATURE.
~The cave salamander, Spelerpes maculicaudus (Cope), was, until comparatively recently, confounded with its near relative and asso- ciate, Spelerpes longicaudus (Green). The following references per- tain to maculicaudus exclusively:
Gyrinophilus maculicaudus Corr, Am. Nat., XXIV, 1890, p. 966, fig.—(Brook- ville, Indiana).—BurtEr, Journ. Cin. Soc. Nat. Hist., XIV, 1892, p. 172. (Brookville, Indiana; Northeastern Franklin County; Westport, Decatur County. )
Spelerpes maculicaudus Hay, Am. Nat., X XV, 1891, p. 1135 (Brookville, Indiana, p- 1133; Bloomington, Indiana; May’s Cave, near Bloomington; Kern’s Cave, near Bedford, Indiana); Ann. Rept. Dept. Geol. Ind. (1891), 1892, p. 447, pl. 1, fig. 4. (Brookville, Indiana; Bloomington, Indiana; May’s Cave, near Bloomington; Kern’s Cave, near Bedford; Decatur County; and small cave, near Wyandotte Cave, Indiana; Barry County, Missouri, p. 448 ).—GAINES, Am. Nat., X XIX, 1895, p. 55 (Vincennes, Indiana).—Copr, Ann. Rept. Smiths. Inst. (1898), 1900, p. 1213 (Transalleghenian district of the Caroli- nian Faunal area).—EiGENMANN, Trans. Am. Micr. Soc., XXII, 1901, pp. 189-91, pl. xxv (Rockhouse Cave, Wilson’s Cave, and Marble Cave, Missouri; Brookville, Wyandotte Cave, and Bloomington, Indiana ).—E1GEN- MANN and Kernnepy, Biol. Bull., 1V, No. 5, 1903, pp. 227-8, fig. 1 (Marble Cave and Rockhouse Cave, Missouri).
PROCEEDINGS U. S. NATIONAL Museum, VOL. XXX—No. 1443. 67
68 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL. XXX.