156 DESCRIPTION OF CORALS. 
Porites? panicea. (Tab. I. fig. 7.) 
Expanded in vertical or contorted layers, also variously lobed ; stars, small, 
developed from central lines or axes, no definite walls, irregularly disposed on 
opposite surfaces or around the lobes; lamelle 12, unequal in breadth, thick 
near the periphery of the star, thin in range towards the centre, composed 
of continuous plates, with hispid sides; centre union of lamellz no distinct 
axis ; interstitial structure plates and elongated tubercles or filaments variously 
united and reticulated, also intersected, parallel to the surface, by limited lamin 
or layers ; surface sometimes partially occupied by a similar lamina studded with 
small points ; terminal cup shallow with or without a raised margin, edges of 
lamelle when perfect jagged, sometimes a minute central boss ; additional stars 
developed in substance of polype-mass. 
Heliopora panicea, De Blainville?, Manuel d’Actinol. p. 393 (Heliolithe irre- 
guliere, Guettard, Mém. t.iii. p. 502. pl. 47. f. 5,6. Calc. tertiaire, Valmondois), 
1830-34. 
Astrea pancea, Michelin, Iconog. Zoophytologiq. p. 160. pl. 44. f. 11 (Paris 
Basin Series, Auvert), 1844-45. 
Two specimens of a Bracklesham coral, believed to be specifically identical 
with the Ast. panicea of M. Michelin, were examined. The larger was part of a 
thin vertical layer 2$ inches in breadth, 12 in height, and about 4 lines in 
thickness, where most uniform; on one side it was nearly flat, but on the 
other the surface was irregular and lobed, or gave off ramose projections, often 
displaced. 'The second specimen consisted also in part of a vertical layer of 
less area, but thicker and uneven on both sides, one being connected with 
numerous branches confusedly intermixed. 
M. de Blainville does not describe the coral to which he gave the name of 
Hel. panicea, merely referring to Guettard’s figures and notices ; and it would 
be difficult from these alone to determine whether that coral is identical with 
the one delineated and described by M. Michelin; but as the latter authority 
entertains no doubt, and the Bracklesham specimens agree very nearly with the 
figures and account in the ‘ Iconographie,’ it is necessary to explain first, why 
M. de Blainville’s genus is not retained ; and secondly, why M. Michelin’s also 
is not adopted. 
The English fossil differed from Heliopora cerulea, the recent type, in the 
lamella being limited strictly to twelve; in being fully produced, extending to 
