DESCRIPTION OF CORALS. 143 
intermediate transverse diaphragms irregular; axis small; boundary of stars 
composed of reticulated plates ; terminal cup including projections deep ; conical 
mounds seated chiefly on the angles, sometimes on the margins of the sides ; 
form variable as well as number of radiating lamelle-plates ; additional stars 
interpolated. 
Styl. monticularia, Schweigger, Beobachtungen auf Naturhistorischen Reisen, 
taf. 6. fig. 62, explanation of Tables, and Systematic Table 5, 1819. 
Astrea hystrix, De France, Dict. Sc. Nat. t. xl. p. 385, 1826. Michelin, 
Iconographie Zoophytologique, p. 160. pl. 45. fig. 1, 1844-1845. 
Astrea (Cellastrea) hystriz, De Blainville, Manuel d’Actinologie, pp. 377, 
385-6 ; Atlas, pl. 54. fig. 5?, 1830-1834. 
The genus Stylophora was established by Schweigger (op. cit.) for two poly- 
parians, a Grignon fossil (Styl. monticularia), and a recent coral (Styl. pistillaris, 
Madrepora pistillaris, auct.), but possessed apparently of very different struc- 
tures. It has not been retained, so far as the compiler of these notices is 
aware, by any subsequent authority, except M. de Blainville *, and by him only 
for the fossil species, which, he says, is an Astrea, the Ast. hystrix of M. De 
France (op. cit. p. 386). M. Milne-Edwards, however, alludes in his edition of 
Lamarck’s ‘ Animaux sans Vertébres’ to the genus having been admitted into 
the ‘Manuel d’Actinologie,’ and he gives M. de Blainville’s characters for it, 
but without offering an opinion respecting the propriety of its being adopted 
(op. cit. t. il. p. 437, notes, 1836). 
Confining the attention to the characters of the fossil species, or Styl. monti- 
cularia, Schweigger’s type, and considering the Bracklesham coral, which agrees 
very nearly with that author’s unmagnified figures, as well as M. Michelin’s 
delineations of Ast. hystrix (loc. cit.), as specifically identical, it is necessary, in 
the first place, to inquire, whether we are justified in adopting the genus. 
In the notice on Siderastrea Websteri, Ehrenberg’s definition of Astrea is 
considered to be the best hitherto proposed, being founded primarily on the 
subdivisional mode of developing additional stars. Another important character 
not alluded to in that instance, a reference to it being unnecessary as respected 
the fossil then under consideration, is, that the number of lamell in those 
* Man. d’Actinol. p.385. In the article on the genus, Styl. pistillaris has been accidentally given 
for Styl. monticularia, though in the subsequent remarks, M. de Blainville, as stated above, confines 
the genus to the fossil species. Schweigger’s fig. 62 is also associated with Styl. pistillaris, though 
in the original work it is stated to represent Styl. monticularia, from Grignon. 
u 2 
