RELATIONS OF CHONOPHYLLUM. 2(j 



( Jlassification. 



■ > 



Edwards and Haime located the genus in their family Oyathophyllidse, 

 tribe Cyathophyllinse, thus ascribing to it a regularly radiate septal appa- 

 ratus, superposed tabulae, and no true columella* They made no pro- 

 vision in their classification for a coral in which the tabulae are absent or 

 rudimentary, with regularly radiate septa and vesicles well developed. 

 In his very elaborate classification of the rugose corals Dybowski f does 

 not include the genus, and no satisfactory disposition can be made of it 

 either in his scheme or in the much simplified form of it adopted by 

 Zittel. This latter author places the genus under Diaphragmatophora, 

 Dyh., thus ascribing to it complete tabulae with dissepiments wanting 

 or rudimentary. 'j 



The characters to he taken note of in its classification are a tetrameral, 

 simple growth; regularly radiate septa formed by delicate, superposed 

 layers, convex upward; a simple epithecal wall; well developed dis- 

 sepiments; and absence of fovea, columella, and true tabula?. These 

 peculiarities of structure require that special provision he made for the 

 genus in any classification adopted. 



List of Species. 



- Results of defective Definition. — When we consider the vagueness which 

 has characterized the genus Chonophyllum we are not surprised to find 

 a wide range of structure in the species assigned to it. Tabulae well 

 developed, tabulae absent ; dissepiments occupying hut a portion of the 

 corallum, dissepiments filling the entire visceral cavity; septa remark- 

 ably developed ; septa reduced to mere ridges or rows of spines. In the 

 ten species thus far assigned to the genus there are at least five different 

 genera represented, and of those who have described them, excepting 

 possibly those who have worked conjointly upon a species, no two have 

 had in mind the same set of generic characters. As the result of some 

 correspondence with those who have worked furthest in this line, I have 

 found them generally loth to express any opinion in regard to the 

 distinguishing characteristics of the genus. 



1. Chonophyllum perfoliatiini, Goldfuss, sp. 



Cyathophylium plicatuvi, Goldf. Petref. Germ., erster theil, L826, p. 59, 



tah. xviiij fig. 5. 

 Cyathophylium perfoliatuvi, Goldf. MSS. in Bonn museum. 



!'■! n Foss. ' lor., 1850, |,i. i, p. Ixix. 

 t Mon. der Zoan. Scler. Bug., 1873, pp. 74-84, 

 Hundb. der Pal., vol. i, 1880, p, 229. 



