a 47 
106), more widely than as concerns any other form described by him. Having, however, 
had the opportunity of examining a very extensive series of specimens, I cannot at present 
accept his views with regard to the limits of this species. It seems pretty certain, to begin 
-with, that the forms included by Goldfuss (Petref. Pl. XK VI. Figs. 4a—d) under the name 
of F. basaltica differ from one another in their characters to such an extent that they would 
usually be (as they actually have been) separated into two distinct species. On the one hand, 
making the existenzt of a single row of mural pores the distinguishing character of the species, 
Goldfuss includes under this head forms which differ only in this character from F. Goth- 
landica ; and on the other hand he associates-with these forms which differ very widely from 
F. Gothlandica in most of their characters, but which are believed to agree with the preceding 
in the above mentioned feature. We may, therefore, consider that F. basalticu of Goldfuss was 
made originally to include the following two groups of specimens : ; 
1. Specimens agreeing with 7. Gothlandica (luam.), in possessing prismatic corallites, the 
size of which is upon the whole generally uniform, but which differ from F. Gothlandica in 
possessing but a single row of mural pores. (Peiref. Pl. XXVLI., Figs. 4c, 4d). 
2. Specimens which agree with the preceding in having sometimes (not always) a single 
row of pores, but which differ in having nearly rounded or cylindrical corallites, the sizes of 
which are exceedingly unequal ; whilst the place of complete tabule is taken by numerous 
short projecting lamellz, which impart a peculiar and characteristic appearance to the inner 
surface of the corallites. (Petref. Pl. XXVI., Figs. 4a, 4). 
Now, it is the first of these groups of specimens that paleontologists have generally 
agreed in regarding as the type-form of /’. basaltica (Gold.); and the chief difference of 
opinion has simply concerned the question whether these forms are separable from F’. Gothlandica 
_ (Lam.), or not. Some authorities, such as McCoy & Lonsdale, maintain, apparently with 
good reason, that these forms are truly referrible to F. Gothlandica; whilst others, such as 
Milne Edwards and Haime, retain these forms under a separate species under the name of 
F. basaltica. Whichever of these views may be ultimately adopted, I, at any rate, have seen 
no specimens from the Corniferous Limestone of Western Ontario which appear to me to be 
truly referrible to the type here alluded to. We do meet, certainly, with specimens exhibiting 
prismatic basaltiform tubes,in every respect resembling F’. Gothlandica, except that the corallites 
are on the average a little smaller, and they exhibit but a single row of mural pores. These 
specimens I was at first sight disposed to set down as belonging to F. basaltica, and I have 
seen them so named by others. I have, however, succeeded in fully satisfying myself that 
the specimens in question are truly decorticated examples of F. ¢urbinata (Billings), in which 
there is also but a single row of pores. Examples of this species can be found with the char- 
acteristic epitheca in all stages and at all degrees of removal ; and when~it has entirely dis- 
appeared, all the characters of this first section of F. basaltica (Gold.), are assumed, the only 
distinguishing mark, perhaps, being that the walls of the corallites have the comparatively 
great thickness which is characteristic of F. turbinata. It need only be added in this connec- 
tion, that unmistakable examples of F. Gothlandica not uncommonly exhibit, as has been often 
noticed by other observers, the single rows of pores which Goldfuss believed to be character- 
istic of /. basaltica ; though I am not aware that any colony of F. Gothlandica has ever been 
observed in which a// the corallites possessed but one row of mural pores. 
We have now to consider the other group of specimens included by Goldfuss under the 
head of F’. basaltica, namely, those in which the corallites are more or less circular or cylindri- 
cal in shape, and are very unequal in size, whilst they possess other peculiarities as well. 
These specimens were separated from F. basaltica by Milne Edwards & Haime, under the 
name of Favosites Forbesi ; but they were subsequently re-united with the preceding group of 
forms by Mr. Billings, the name basaltica being retained for the combined groups. My own 
opinion, as I have already said, is that the colonies with small, nearly uniformly-sized, pris- 
matic and uniporous corallites (as occuring in the Corniferous Limestone) are referable to 
decorticated examples of F. turbinata (Billings). I, therefore, am at present disposed to 
believe that Mavosites Forbesi (Edw. & Haime), is a good species, clearly separable from the 
type-form of J’. basaltica, as generally accepted (though including part of F. basaltica of 
Goldfuss) ; and I shall describe under this name the second group of specimens to which L 
have drawn attention. 
