112 A. HJ. Verrill — Bermudian and West Indimi Reef Corcds. 



Ehrenberg, in 1834, definitely restricted 3Iadrep or a- to a group 

 that included Porites and 3Tontipora, Avhile be called tbe Lamarckian 

 genus, Heteropora. His nomenclature cannot be followed : Ist^ 

 because Pori^gs had been separated and named by Link, 1807, and 

 Lamarck, 1816 ; 2d, no recognizable species of Montipora was 

 included in Madrepora by Linne, ed. x ; 3d, Heteropora had pre- 

 viously been used by Blainville for a bryozoan; 4th, Oken's restric- 

 tion has priority. 



For several reasons, it seems to me doubtful whether, under the 

 rules of priority usually accepted, it will not be thought by many 

 unnecessary to abandon the name Madrepora for the muricata- 

 type, as restricted by Lamarck, for the following reasons : — 



1st. — By Linne and all other writers of his period Madrepora was 

 used as a collective name for all corals of the order Madreporaria. It 

 was rather an order or suborder than a genus, and therefore it seems 

 useless to apply the rigid modern rules' of priority to such a group 

 name. 



2d. — Madrepora nmricata L. had been referred to Madrepora \i\ 

 Linne, as M. sjyinosa, before the date of ed. x (Mus. Tessin., p. 118), 

 and its reference to Millepora in the later work was clearly an error 

 speedily corrected.* 



3d. — Linne, in ed. xii, gave his more mature and corrected views as 

 to his own genera. Therefore, for the discussion of generic, nomen- 

 clatui'e, it might be better not to go back of that edition. 



4th. — It is possible that at least one of his species in the ed. x, 

 viz. M. polijgama^ No. 28, p. 795, belongs to the Lamarckian genus 

 Madrepora, for it was described as having cylindrical, 12-ra3'ed 

 calicles, though the larger cells, mentioned by him, were probably 

 parasitic barnacles. This species is probably indeterminable. It 

 may have been a Montipora. 



Should M. jyohjgama L. be hereafter positively identified as a 

 species congeneric with M. muricata, as is possible, this fact alone 

 would, perhaps, make valid Lamarck's restriction of the name Madre- 

 pora in the opinion of many. Such a determination is not impos- 

 sible, though this species has hitherto remained very doubtful. 



In the meantime many persons will doubtless prefer to take the 

 more recent and radical course, and apply some other name to 

 Lamarck's Madrepora. Vaughan (op. cit., p. 68) has adopted 

 Isopora, first used under Madrepora as a subgeneric name by Studer, 



* By another error he referred the ' ' red coral '" (Corallinm, rubrum) to Madre- 

 pora {M. rubra, p. 797). 



