1(50 EOCEM^E AND LOWER OLIGOOENE CORAL FAUNAS. 



perforations could be discovered in several thin cross sections, nor in many 

 long-itudinal sections, nor on the flat faces of the septa. SjTiapticula? veiy 

 abundant; in an interseptal loculus extending;- from one calicinal center to 

 the next there are from six to nine. Those synapticulse whose origin could 

 be made out are false, but I can not deny that true sj^napticulfe also may 

 sometimes be ])resent. There appear to be occasional dissepiments, but of 

 this I can not be positive. The calices are not preserved in their original 

 condition; therefore the original character of the columella could not be 

 made out with absolute certaint}-. In many cases it appears to be a stout 

 pillar or style, but this appearance might be produced by chemical chang-es, 

 soldering the inner ends of the septa together after the death of the coral. 

 In other instances it seems false. The thin sections show the fusion of the 

 inner ends of the septa in the columella space. The following characteriza- 

 tion seems correct: Columella well developed but false, formed of the inner- 

 most septal trabeculfE, which may fuse so completel}' that in cross section, 

 below its upper surface, it may appear solid. Upi)er surface papillate. The 

 calices are supei-ficial. Reproduction by budding between the calicinal 

 centers. 



Locality. — Prairic Creek, Alabama. 



Horizon. — Mldway beds. 



Types. — Three specimens in the United States National Museum. 



This species resembles very closely TJiamnastrcca balli Duncan from the 

 Ranikot (Lower Eocene) series of the Sind. It has more septa than the 

 Sind form, and its calices are larger. 



The species just descrilied is undoubtedly Mesomoi'pha. A species, 

 Mesomorpha cafwhipoisis, recently described by myself from Catadupa, 

 Jamaica, ^ might not be Mesomorpha, as the septa just below the upper 

 edge may sometimes be perforate. 



In the paper on Jamaican corals, just alluded to, some remarks are 

 made on the insufficiency of the characterization of Thamnastrsea. Those 

 remarks, with some additions, will l)e repeated here. 



There is no way of distinguishing from tlie literature the difference 

 between Mesomorpha and Thamnastraja, because n<) thorough study of the 

 type of the latter genus, Th. demhoidca (Lamouroux), has been made. 

 Pratz, in his memoir Ueber den Aufbau des SeptalapjDarates einiger 



' Bull. Mus. Comp. ZoOl. Harvard Coll., Vol. XXXIV, 1899, p. 246, pi. xli, figs. 1-3, 



