A019318 ? (Sorry - figured it out.)

[Brendan McKay]

* Jim Nastos <nastos at cs.ualberta.ca> [030527 08:40]:
> 
> Sorry, folks:
> 
> >   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.)

I agree with you about "queens", that really must go.  I suggest
"Inequivalent ways of choosing n squares of an n x n chessboard,
considering rotations and reflections."

It should be a piece of cake to find an exact formula using
Burnside's Lemma, but I'll give someone else the pleasure.

Brendan.