206 A. F. Yen-ill — Comparisons of Coral Fauna?. 



ADDENDA. 



Since this article was put in type I have corresponded Avith Dr. 

 T. W. Vaughan, in regard to various debated cases in the nomen- 

 clature of the West Indian Reef Corals, concerning which we did 

 not agree, as stated above in Article III. See also note, p. 169. 



He has recently authorized me to state that he now agrees with 

 my determinations in the following cases : — 



Meeandra versus Platygyra. P. 66-68. 



He accepts the former name, as restricted by me (p. 66), instead 

 of Platygyra, and also agrees with me as to the necessity of uniting 

 to it Diploria, Manicina (auth.), and Codoria. (See p. 6*7.) 



Acropora v\ -rsus Isopora. P. 164, 208. 



He accepts the name Acropora for this genus, as restricted (p. 104) 

 instead of Isopora. He also agrees with me as to the restriction of 

 Madr&pora to the type of 31. oeulata, = Amphihelia and Lopho- 

 helia. See pp. 110-113. 



Madracis rersus Axohelia. P. 109. 



He accepts the former, as having priority. 



Orbicella annularis rersus O. acropora. P. 94, 95. 



He agrees with me as to the propriety of using the former name. 



In respect to the restriction of Meandrina to the type of 31. mean- 

 dj-/f<:s=jPectinia auth. we were already in accord (p. 66). Also in 

 the use of Farites for Prionastrasa (p. 92); and in the union of all 

 known West Indian forms of Acropora under the name muricata 

 (p. 165). On some other minor points we no longer differ. 



But he does not, at present, agree with me in the use of Meeandra 

 cerebrum in place of 31. riridis, on the ground that he does not con- 

 sider the description of Ellis and Solander sufficient for the identi- 

 fication of the species. (See pp. 74, 77.) 



Nor does he agree with me as to the use of Porites polymorpha 

 (p. 158), instead of P. porites or P. clavaria. He believes that Ellis 

 and Solander practically restricted porites to the type of clavaria. 

 If their treatment of the species can be considered as such a restric- 

 tion, then the name properly should hold for this species. But I 

 have not hitherto considered that Ellis and Solander intended to 

 separate the West Indian form from others, but that they merely 

 described the form that they had from the West Indies as an 

 example of the species. This point is a debatable one. 



Mr. Vaughan's family name Favidoe is equivalent to my Mcean- 

 dridce (p. 65), and has priority. His use of the family name Orbicel- 

 lidce also has priority over my identical use of it (p. 93). 



