A019318 ? (Sorry - figured it out.)

[Jim Nastos]

Sorry, folks:


On Mon, 26 May 2003, Jim Nastos wrote:

>   If we assume nonisomorphic configurations, I don't see N=3 being 16.

  
  I now see N=3 as being 16, so this is probably the correct 
interpretation. But I still think the use of "queens" is irrelevant and 
perhaps misleading (as I came across this sequence when showing someone 
else how OEIS can be used to find the number of solutions to the 
non-attacking queens problem.)

Jim