58 Vaughan Nomenclature of West Indian Corals. 



scabra, poris siibstellatis confertis," thus limiting the name to 

 the branching forms, and eliminating such species as Porites 

 astreoides and Rhodarc&acalycularis. Ellis and Solander, 1786, 

 figured typical clavaria under the name Madrepora porites, de 

 scribing it as "Madrepora ramulosa, ramis clavato-complanatis, 

 stellis contiguis (lamellarum loco) cuspidato-tuberculatis" This 

 completely restricts the specific name porites. 



Link (1807) used polymorphus for Madrepora porites, Gmel., 

 Syst. Nat. ed. XIII, p. 3774; Esper, Th. 1, Madrepora, pi. xxi; 

 and Madrepora damicornis, Gmel., Syst. Nat. ed. XIII, p. 

 3775; Esper, Th. I, Madrepora pi. xlvi. His only specific de 

 scription is contained in the words "Vielgestalte P\orite$\" 

 He confused two species, and I do not see how his name can be 

 used at all for any species as it is a renaming of Madrepora 

 porites, as used by Linnaeus, damicornis. The name is not pro 

 posed for a part of porites. As shown above, the name porites 

 had been definitely restricted twenty-one years previously by 

 Ellis and Solander. 



Lamarck (1816) describes Pon'tes clavaria in words quite sim 

 ilar to those of Ellis and Solander. To illustrate his species, 

 he refers to pi. xlvii, fig. 1, of Ellis and Solander and Vol. I, 

 pi. xxi, of Esper, each figure being designated Madrepora por 

 ites by the respective author of the work in which it was pub 

 lished. Ellis and Solander confused nothing else with their 

 one species, therefore Porites clavaria of Lamarck is a precise 

 synonym of Madrepora porites Pallas, restricted by Ellis and 

 Solander. 



Considering the extremely complex synonymies with which 

 we have had to deal and the great difficulties encountered in 

 the material itself in studying corals, it is extremely gratifying 

 to me that the differences between Prof. Verrill and myself are 

 so slight, being comparatively trivial. The paper by Prof. 

 Verrill, to which both he and I have referred, is an admirable 

 contribution to our knowledge of corals. I find in it very 

 little from which I dissent; in actual ideas we are in agreement 

 almost completely. 



