CERIOPORID/E. 125 



from the same specimen by Hagenow (' Maast. Kreideb./ pi. v, fig. 15). In these 

 figures, if they really represent the form intended in fig. 9 d, and e, of (aoldfuss, which is 

 not quite clear, the minute characters are not those of the Crag fossil, nor can they be in 

 any way reconciled with them. The entire absence of any reference by Dr. Hagenow to 

 the peculiar reticulate sulcation of the surface, which is so obvious and striking a charac- 

 teristic of our H. reticulata, leads to the supposition that so careful and accurate an observer 

 could not have had that form under observation. And the same remark will apply to 

 Reuss' figure of H. dichotoma, which is clearly the same as Hagenow's. In this 

 doubtful state of the question, and considering, moreover, that the variety marked d and a 

 in Goldfuss's figure cannot be regarded as the typical form of his species, which is rather 

 that marked a, b, c, it seems advisable to designate the Crag fossil by a distinctive appel- 

 lation, and for the present to drop that of dichotoma, which evidently, as originally con- 

 stituted, includes at least two, and perhaps three, distinct forms. 



At the same time Goldfuss' figure so closely resembles that of H. reticulata, that I am 

 very strongly inclined to think that direct comparison of his specimen with the Crag 

 species would , show that they are really identical. His species, it is true, belongs to the 

 Cretaceous period, but there seems no reason to doubt that some one or other of the forms 

 assigned by him to it also existed in the Tertiary period, and it may, therefore, be pre- 

 sumed that the one now in question may have survived up to that of the Crag deposit. 



The peculiar characteristic of H. reticulata is the coarsely sulcate or reticulate aspect 

 of the surface, which bears, in some respects, a strong resemblance to that of a Hornera, 

 whence, as well as from the smallness of the interstitial pores and canals, this species may 

 be regarded as intermediate between Hornera and Heteropora. 



3. H. L^VIGATA? D'Orbiyny, (sp.) PI. XIX, fig. 5 (young state). 



Ramosa ; ramis elongatis cylindraceis, fortibus, teretibus. Superficie scrobiculata, 

 ad ramorum basim nitide reticulate-fibrosa. Cellularum orificiis, simplicibus, orbiculari- 

 bus, superficie seqnatis, in zonis annularibus vel irregulariter sinuosis aggregatis ; ostiolis 

 parvis, in scrobiculis positis ; cellulis parietibus rugulosis, perforatis; tubulis intersti- 

 tialibus perangustis moniliformibus. 



Polyzoarium composed of elongated, cylindrical, strong, tapering branches ; surface 

 pitted, and at the base of the branches finely fibro-reticulate ; orifices of cells simple, 

 orbicular, level with the surface, assembled into zones, either annular, or meandering 

 irregularly over the surface; ostioles small, situated in the pits; cell-tubes wrinkled, 

 walls perforated ; interstitial tubes very small and moniliform. 



CERIOPOKA DICHOTOMA (?), Goldfuss, pi. x, fig. 9, a, b, c. 

 ZONOPORA L^VIGATA, D' Orbiyny, Terr. Ciit., pi. Dcclsxi, figs 7, 8. 

 MULTIZONOPORA LiGKRiENSis (?), Id. ib., pi. Dcclxxii, figs. 4 6. 



