GENERAL HISTORY. 15 



The latest views of Professor De Koninck upon the genus 



Montictilipora, so far as I am aware, are contained in his 



' Nouvelles Recherches sur les Animaux Fossiles du 

 187'' 



Terrain Carbonifere de la Belgique ' (p. 141), published 



in 1872; though his earlier publications (An. Foss. du Terr. 

 Carb.) contain also descriptions of species of the genus. In the 

 work just mentioned, M. De Koninck briefly defines the genus 

 Montictdipora, D'Orb., and describes under it as species M. 

 tumida, Phill., and M. ? injiata, De Kon. It is singular to 

 find this eminent palaeontologist doubtful, in his definition of 

 the genus, as to two such important points as the presence 

 or absence of septa, and the complete or incomplete con- 

 dition of the tabulae, and subsequently even inclined to question 

 if tabulae exist at all in the genuine species of Montiailipora. 

 On the other hand, it is interesting to find so high an authority 

 disposed to refer the genus to the Alcyonaria, rather than to 

 the Zoantkaria. With regard to the two species described by 

 De Koninck, it may be observed that it is questionable if M. ? 

 inflata be a Motiticulipora at all ; while the form termed M. 

 iumida, Phill., does not appear to be identical with the form 

 understood generally under this name by British palaeontolo- 

 gists, and, judging from the description and figures, would seem 

 to probably include more than one species. 



Mr Salter, in his last published work (Cat. Foss. Woodw. 

 Mus., 1873), regards Montmdipoj'a as a synonym oi Nebulipora^ 

 M'Coy, while he, at the same time, places some species 

 of the genus under Stenopora. 



In 1874, I published a paper on species of Ckcsieies from the 

 Lower Silurian rocks of North America (Quart. Journ. Geol. 

 Soc, vol. XXX. pp. 499-515, Pis. XXIX., XXX.), in 

 which were discussed the affinities of the genera Cha:teteSy 

 Stenopora^ and Montiailipora. As the microscopic structure 

 of all these three genera was at that time unknown, or imper- 

 fectly known, I concluded that the external characters and 

 more evident internal features did not afford sufficient basis 

 for the establishment of the genus Monticulipora, as separate 



