GENERAL REMARKS. 7 
jast shortly before the appearance of my second contribution on the new species in the British 
Museum, but I did not see a copy of it until the end of December. Rehberg’s work is based 
on a study of the German Collections, and especially of that in Hamburg; but he has also 
studied the Berlin Collection, and specimens from the collections in Kiel, Lubeck, and 
Bremen. A long list of species is given according to their geographical distribution, but, as 
already pointed out, such lists, unless accompanied by a complete revision of the synonymy, 
are not reliable. This paper also includes descriptions of 10 new species, and notes on a 
number of other species. I have not seen the specimens described and recorded by Rehberg, 
and I therefore do not feel justified in fully criticizing his results, nor in including the species 
recorded by him in my synonymy, excepting in a provisional way. To some extent a 
rectification of specific names is necessary between us. Rehberg describes a new species, 
M. incrustans, one specimen of which is in the Berlin Museum ; this specimen is referable to 
M. plicata, a species which I described in 1891, and I therefore presume that M. incrustans 
is a synonym. The name M. edwardsii is proposed for M. echinata, M.-Ed. & H. (non 
Dana), from Luzon. I do not know if Rehberg has studied the Paris type, but I did not 
myself note any difference between the specimens referred to Dana’s species by Milne- 
Edwards and the species which I regard as M. echinata, Dana, but there is little doubt that 
the figure given by Milne-Edwards does not represent Dana’s species. In the geographical 
list (p. 33) a species is referred to as “ M. symmetrica, nu. sp.—Palau.” No description of 
this species is given in the text, and I therefore cannot say if it is the same as M. symmetrica 
from Mauritius, which I described in 1891; if not, it must be regarded as a nomen nudum. 
Again, plate iv. fig. 10 is referred to M. spinosa, n. sp., but no species is described under that 
name in the text. Rehberg gives the name MW. coronata to a new species from Madagascar. 
I have also used the same name for a different species from the Great-Barrier Reef, 1892 
paper; Rehberg’s name has priority, and I have therefore changed the name of M. coronata, 
mihi, in the present work. 
The views as to synonymy which we derived from a study of the Berlin Collection are by 
no means identical. I understand that Dr. Rehberg was unable to find many of the specimens 
which I saw later, and I may also state that as in no case did I find the original labels on the 
specimens, I had to spend considerable time in referring to the original labels and comparing 
the specimens with the descriptions so as to make sure that the specimens which I studied 
were really the types. 
MORPHOLOGY. 
Skeleton.—Dunean * has given an account of the structure of the corallum in three species 
of Madrepora. The first species described was not determined, but is an arborescent form 
with long slender proliferous branches, and may be taken as an example of quick-growing 
species, in which the corallum is not thickened by a secondary deposition of carbonate of 
* “On the Hard Structures of some Species of Madrepora,” Aun. Mag. N. H. 1884, vol. xiv. 
pp. 181-191. 
