114 



In the smallest three specimens pali have not as yet been 

 properly formed, and the tertiary septa, except in a few systems, 

 have not become connected with the columella No. 4 has 

 distinct rods arising before five of the secondary septa, and 

 forming part of the columella. No. 5 has three (? four) true 

 pali before tertiary septa, but as also in No. 6, the other spines 

 are less definitely connected with particular septa than in No. 

 4. Nos. I, 4, and 5 are conical, with narrow bases of attach- 

 ment ; but No. I has secondarily deposited an epitheca, covering 

 over the upper sides of two barnacles that have become at- 

 tached to the outer side of its corallum. Nos. 2 and 4 have 

 large and spreading bases, while No. 3 is intermediate in this 

 character. 



The most important characters of the species appear to be 

 five cycles of almost equally exsert septa, low costae corre- 

 sponding in number to the same and equal in size, and 12 

 relatively narrow pali, scarcely higher than the deep fasciculate 

 columella. 



The rule in the species, most typical of Caryofhyllia, appears 

 to be that the number of pali is equal to one quarter of the 

 total number of septa present, whereas in the fully adult speci- 

 mens of the species under consideration they would seem to be 

 equal to one eighth. This character alone serves to separate 

 it from most other described forms, but it allies it to those of 

 which accounts have been given under the names Bathycyathus 

 indicns, Ed. and H. {Ann. des. Sc. nat., 3e ser., pi. TX., fig. 

 4) and B. inacjilaius (Pourtales, Mem. M?is. Coinp. Zoo I., vol. 

 IV., p. 34, pi. VI., figs. 5, 6), though it will be obvious that 

 neither of these can be the form now described.* 



II. CARYOPHYLLIA EPITHECATA, n. sp. (PI. I, 



figs. 3 a-c). 



(?) C. clavus, var. efithecata, Duncan, Trans. Zoo. Soc, VIII., 

 p. 312, pi. XLVIIL. figs. 13-16 (1871). 



I refer 30 specimens to a new species which I believe to be 

 identical with a form that Duncan deemed to be a variety of 

 C. clavus. While I cordially recognise the valuable work that 

 Duncan did in showing the range of variation m this species of 

 coral, I fail to see that the greater number of his varieties really 

 represent types of growth — or modes of discontinuous series — 

 to which the term " variety " should properly be restricted. In- 

 deed, all the varieties of this coral seem to me to fall within 

 continuous series with the exception of var. epithecata, the 



The genus Btitliycviiflnis was lijihtly absorbed by Duncan into CarvopUyllia. 



