88 SIDNEY F. HAEMER. 



names, published in the year before the part of the twelfth edi- 

 tion of the ' Systema Naturae^ which referred to Zoophytes. 



I have come to the conclusion, from my study of the de- 

 velopment, that it is not possible to separate '^Idmonea^' 

 liliacea generically from the British forms recognised as 

 ''Tubulipora/^ although I claim no novelty in that con- 

 clusion. It thus becomes necessary to consider whether the 

 genus which includes the two species should be called Idmo- 

 nea or Tubulipora. 



The genus Tubulipora was founded by Lamarck (23) in 

 1816, while Idmonea is due to Lamouroux (25), and dates 

 from 1821. Lamarck's type-species is T. transversa, said 

 to be found on Fucus in the Mediterranean. The small purple 

 Eschara of Ellis, and Millepora tubulosa of Ellis and 

 Solander, are given as synonyms, and from this, with the 

 diagnosis, it might be concluded that T. liliacea. Pall., is the 

 type-species of the genus Tubulipora. H. Milne Edwards 

 has, however, figured (30, pi. ix, figs. 3 and 3«) a specimen 

 from the Paris Museum with the statement (p. 218, note) 

 that it is the one from which Lamarck's description was 

 taken. He regarded the species as an Idmonea (29, p. 332), 

 a course which is hardly justifiable considering that it was the 

 type-species of the earlier genus Tubulipora. If, then, we 

 are to accept Milne Edwards' figures as a correct representa- 

 tion of Lamarck's species, Idmonea becomes, on his showing, 

 a synonym of Tubulipora. 



If a generic distinction between Tubulipora and Id- 

 monea, in the ordinarily understood sense, can really be 

 maintained, this is a regrettable conclusion, since it results in 

 the substitution of Tubulipora for Idmonea, and would 

 necessitate the use of some other generic name for the species 

 usually understood to belong to Tubulipora. If Lamarck's 

 type-specimen is still in existence, and the evidence that it is 

 the type-speciuien is satisfactory, I suppose there is no option 

 but to regard the synonyms which he himself gave for T. 

 transversa as erroneous. But as the evidence is perhaps 

 not quite certain, and as, moreover, it is not clear that any 



