A. JBj. Verrill — Bermudian and West Indian Reef Corals, 95 



The specimens from which the figures of annularis, faveolata, 

 stellidata, and pleiades were made, in tlie work of Ellis and Solander, 

 were all badly worn. Hence there has always been much uncer- 

 tainty as to their identilication. However, there seems to be no 

 doubt but that their anmdaris was really this species, and their 

 faveohita was probably the same species, more eroded. There is 

 more doubt about stellidata. It raaj^ be the same thing, but it inight 

 be a Solenastrcea. (See p. 97.) 



It seems best, however, to let Dana's determination of the latter 

 stand, for it is as likely to be correct as any other, and is based on 

 types still preserved. 



The M. acropora of Linne is titterly indeterminable. The locality 

 is unknown, and the diagnosis is so brief and vague that it applies 

 equally well to any one of a dozen or more species of small astrean 

 corals, both Pacific and Atlantic. Nor does the author refer to any 

 figure in earlier works. It is useless and unfortunate to try to applj^ 

 the name to the present species and to displace a valid and long 

 established name by one of extreme uncertainty, as has been done 

 recently b}^ both Gregory and Vaughan. I do not know any good 

 reason for such a course, in this case. The name acropora (L.) 

 should be discarded as indeterminable, both generically and specific- 

 ally. If used at all it should only date from H. acropora E. and H. 



There is no certainty nor pi'obability that the Linnaan species was 

 the same as annularis, nor is there any good reason to believe that 

 the acropora of Esper, or of Edw. and Hairae was the same as the 

 acropora of Linne. Even if the acropora of Edw. and Haime should 

 prove to be only a variation of annularis (which may still be 

 doubted), it does not follow that the name should be adopted as from 

 Linne (ed. xii), for Edw. and Haime applied this name arbitrarily to 

 the particular form that they had in view. They could have had no 

 more knowledge of this Linna^an species than Esper, Lamarck, Dana, 

 and others, for there is nothing definite on which to base any such 

 knowledge. It is certain that the contemporaries of Linne, like 

 Pallas and Ellis, did not thus identify this species, for they described 

 the annularis under other names. The acropora of Esper may or 

 may not be the same as annularis, but in either case the latter has 

 several years priority. Had this species been what Linne had before 

 him, he would undoubtedly have referred to Pallas, who had already 

 well described it as M. astroites, for he referred to the other species 

 described by Pallas. That Pallas had the annularis particularly in 

 view, instead of cavernosa, in his descrijjtion of astroites, is evident 



