A. E. Verrill — Bermiidian and West Indian Beef Corals. 165 



Acropora muricata (Linne) Oken. 



Millepora muricata (pars) Linne, Syst., eel. x, p. 792, 1758. 



Madrepora muricata (pars) Pallas, Elench. Zooph., p. 327, 1766. Linne, ed. 



xii, p. 1279, 1767. Esper (pars), Forts., i, p. 53, pi. 50, pi. 51. Lamarck, 



Syst., p. 371, 1801. 

 Acropora muricata Oken. op. cit., p. 66, 1815. 

 Madrepora cervicomis + M. prolifera + M. palmata +M. flabeUum Lam., Hist. 



Anim. s. Vert., pp. 278, 281, 1816. Ditto, Dana, Zooph. Expl. Exp., 1846. 



Edw. and Haime, Hist. Corall., iii, pp. 136, 139, 160, 1860. Dana, Coral 



Islands, ed. iii, pp. 99, 113, 124, 127. (Growth, etc.) Pourtales, Deep 



Sea Corals, pp. 83, 84, 1871; Florida Reefs, pi. xvii, pi. xviii, pi. xix, 1880. 



Gregory, Ann. and Mag. N. Hist., vi, p. 20, 1900. 

 Madrepora subaquilis and Madrepora perampla Horn, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 



Philad., 1860, p. 435, (=var. palmata, and alces auth., types examined). 

 Madrepora cornuta and Madrepora Thomasiana Duch. and Mich., op. cit., 



1860, p. 82, (=var. sureulo-palmata and palmata). 

 M. ethica D. and M., op. cit., p. 82, 1860, but not the figures, ( = var. prolifera, 



young or dwarfed). 

 Madrepora Mexicana Rehb., op. cit., p. 38, pi. iii, fig. 16, 1892. 

 Madrepora muricata and varieties, Brook, Cat. Mad., i, pp. 23-30, 1893. 



Vaughan, op. cit., p. 69, 1901. 

 Madrepora palmata Whitfield, Bull. Amer. Mus., x, p. 463, pi. xxiv. (A 



very large and fine example.) 



Plate XXXII. Figure 1. 



The name muricata should properly be restricted to this varied 

 West Indian form, as has been done by Brook, Vaughan, and others. 



That the five nominal West Indian species : cervicomis, prolifera, 

 alces, palmata, and flabellum, formerly universally believed to be 

 distinct, are really only variations of one species, must now be 

 admitted, in view of the more careful studies of larger series made 

 during recent years. 



This view had been suggested several times, during many years, 

 but Brook was the first modern writer to definitely unite them and 

 consider them all varieties of muricata. My own experience had 

 led me to the same conclusion some years ago, for I had seen many 

 intermediate specimens.* 



* Gregory, in Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. vi, 1900, p. 20-31, dis- 

 sents from this view, and objects to the use of muricata for any American 

 species. The American branched forms were, however, certainly included under 

 muricata by Linne, Pallas, Esper, and all other early writers, and Brook had a 

 perfect right to restrict it to the American species. His usage must be followed, 

 according to the ordinary rules of nomenclature. 



