4 MADREPORARIA., 
glomerate Porites grouped under one name, M. conglomerata, while on pl. lxv. there is figured 
a thin, encrusting form, called by Esper M. arenosa Linn. In addition to these four, two 
doubtful figures are given, M. contigua (pl. lxvi.) and M. punctata (pl. lxx.). All these are 
referred to in the systematic part. 
Then in 1807, as stated, Link established the genus Porites, believing all the forms to be 
branching, with a single species, P. polymorphus. In 1816, however, Lamarck, without 
mentioning Link, gave a list of sixteen “species” under the generic name Porites. Only five ot 
them really belong to the genus, but as two of these have “varieties,” Lamarck altogether 
described eight forms. He improved on Link’s very brief description. The members of the 
genus were not only branching, but “fixed, branching, lobate or obtuse, with the free upper 
surface everywhere covered with the calicles, which are regular, subcontiguous, superficial or 
excavated, with either no margin or else a very imperfect one, septa filamentous, pointed or 
cuspidate.” This description must be discounted by the fact that Lamarck included in the 
genus specimens of Alveopora, Stylophora and Montipora. He added in a note that flattened 
and encrusting forms occur, which was not apparent from his description, but could be seen by 
his including Esper’s M. arenosa (= P. “arenacea” Lam.). 
In 1820, Lesueur * discovered and figured for the first time the living polyps of certain 
Porites—tive forms in all, two of which he thought were the same species as two of 
Lamarck’s P. astreoides and P. clavaria. 
In 1830 and 1834} De Blainville curtailed the genus by removing the specimens of 
Alveopora and part of the Montipora, which Lamarck had included. One true Porites 
(P. fureata Lam.) he wrongly moved to the genus Heliopora. He left only four true Porites, 
having dropped the two varieties of P. clavaria. His description of the genus was, however, so 
far improved that he added what Lesueur had discovered, that the animals were urceoliform, 
with twelve short tentacles, and also that the calicles were shallow, polygonal, irregular, and 
unequal. No mention is made of the very characteristic pali, apparently because he took 
P. astreoides as a type (see his figure, pl. 1xi., with an enlargement). 
The genus, he thought, could not be an Astreid on account of the perforate septa, nor a 
Madreporid, because the calicles were shallow: 1t formed a kind of transition between the two, 
but it was nearer to the latter. 
In 1834, Quoy and Gaimard§ described new forms, but threw no further light on the 
genus. 
But in the same year Ehrenberg || came much nearer to a natural classification. As one of 
his “ meshwork corals,” Porites came near Madrepora (Heteropora Ehr.), But not having leading 
calicles (hence the name Heteropora) it was classed with Astrwopora, which with Porites formed 
two sub-genera of his “ Madrepora.” Astreopora (Phyllopora Ehr.) differed from Porites in 
having the septa complete, whereas in the latter they were rows of points or teeth. These 
* Mém. Mus. Paris, vi., p. 21. T Dict. Sci. Nat., Ix., p. 360. { Manuel, p. 395. 
§ Voyage de l’Astrolabe, iv. Zoophytes, p. 249. || Korallenthiere, p. 115. 
