206 A. JEJ. Verrill — Comparisons of Coral Faunce. 



ADDENDA. 



Since this article was put in type I have corresponded with Dr. 

 T. W. Vaughan, in regard to A^arious debated cases in the nomen- 

 clature of the West Indian Reef Corals, concerning which we did 

 not agree, as stated above in Article III. See also note, p. 169. 



He has recently authorized me to state that he now agrees with 

 my determinations in the following cases : — 



Mmandra versus Platygyra. P. 66-68. 



He accepts the former name, as restricted by me (p. 66), instead 

 of Platygyra, and also agrees with me as to the necessity of uniting 

 to it Diploria, Manicina (auth.), and Coeloria. (See p. 67.) 

 - Acropora versus Isopora. P. 164, 208. 



He accepts the name Acropora for this genus, as restricted (p. 164) 

 instead of Isopora. He also agrees with me as to the restriction of 

 Madrepora to the type of 31. ocalata,^= Amphihelia and Lopho- 

 helia. See pp. 110-113. 



Madracis versus Axohelia. P. 109, 



He accepts the former, as having priority. 



Orhicella annularis versus 0. acropora. P. 94, 95. 



He agrees with me as. to the propriety of using the former name. 



In respect to the restriction of Meandrina to the type of 31. rnean- 

 'drit€s^=Pectinia auth. we were already in accord (p. 66). Also in 

 the use of Favltes for Prionastrcea (p. 92); and in the union of all 

 known West Indian forms of Acropora under the name nmricata 

 (p. 165). On some other minor points we no longer differ. 



But he does not, at present, agree with me in the use of 3IcBandra 

 cerebrum in place of 31. viridis, on the ground that he does not con- 

 sider the description of Ellis and Solander sufficient for the identi- 

 fication of the species. (See pp. 74, 77.) 



Nor does he agree with me as to the use of Porites polymorpha 

 (p. 158), instead of P. porites or P. clararla. He believes that Ellis 

 and Solander practicall}^ restricted porites to the type of clavaria. 

 If their treatment of the species can be considered as such a restric- 

 tion, then the name properly should hold for this species. But I 

 have not hitherto considei'ed that Ellis and Solander intended to 

 separate the West Indian form from others, but that they merely'' 

 described the form that they had from the West Indies as an 

 example of the species. This point is a debatable one, 



Mr. Vaughan's family name Favidce is equivalent to my 3Icean- 

 dridm (p. 65), and has priority. His use of the family name Orbicel- 

 lidm also has priority over my identical use of it (p. 93). 



