RED SEA AND EGYPTIAN GONIOPORiE. 99 



lilies are the skeleton, and the thick greyish-white threads are filling-in matter. It will be 

 seen from the diagnosis that as regards the calicular skeleton tliis coral agrees with the last, 

 except in the size of the calicles. The growth-form is also different. 



In the remains of the matrix of this fossil are flesh-coloured fragments, the presence oi' 

 which leads me to believe that this coral came from stratum No. 2 of the Loftus series 

 composing tiie rock Giiverchin Kala (see note to p. 97). 



a. (witli a sliced fragment). Geol. Dept. E. 4811. 



Group VI.— RED SEA AND EGYPT. 



Containing descriptions or records of Gonioporm from the Bed Sea (1-6) ; Egyj'^ (1-3) fossil. 



Red Sea Forms. 



The first corals which should here claim our attention are two figured by Savigny in the 

 Atlas to his ' Description de I'Egypte,' pi. iv. fig. 6 and pi. v. fig. 2. Both have from time to 

 time been claimed as representatives of this genus. The former was called Porites clavasia and 

 the la.ttQY Astrcva q). by Audouin who wrote the text. 



The former has given rise to much discussion, and has been a great perplexity for the last 

 four years to the present writer. Milne-Edwards regarded it as the same as Alveopora dcedalea 

 of Forskal. Dr. Briiggemann first described it as an Alveopora {"fenestrata " Lamarck) and 

 then as a Ehodarwa (" H. lagrmnii," and the same as G. Siwjapore 1). Mr. Saville-Kent would 

 identify it with an Australian Alveopora, while Dr. Klunzinger regarded it as more probably a 

 Goniopora. The difBculty lies iu the walls having been drawn double, a condition never seen 

 in Alveopora except where tlie skeletal elements have abnormally proliferated. In growth- 

 form, in the conspicuous pellicular epitheca, the shape of the perforations of the wall, and in its 

 spiny septa the coral is certainly an AlveoiJora. The double wall is probably a mistake on the 

 part of the artist. 



I am confirmed in this suggestion of inaccuracy by noting the great discrepancy 

 between the two figures given of the second of these corals, which was first recognised by 

 Dana as a true Goniopora, and has since been called " G. Savignyi." The calicles in fig. 2 show 

 a few conspicuous septa radiating like a star from a centre with large interseptal loculi. 

 In the enlarged figure (2,) there is no trace of any such arrangement, but a comjjact mass ol' 

 irregular, wavy, nodulated septa showing no central columella and all nearly uniform. Such 

 septa could never have given the appearance shown in fig. 2. Either one or the other is 

 wrong. My suggestion, based upon the growth-form of the coral with its straight sides, 

 rounded top, and conspicuous septa, is that it is an old stock of one of the three forms now 

 to be described. It is true that the friable texture of the top is not shown. But, when 

 once a drawing is shown to be inaccurate, we are left to select according to our judgment 

 what we have reason to believe to be correct, and to neglect the rest. 



2 



