DESCRIPTION OF CORALS. VS7 
the centre of the star; in the shallowness of the star or indistinct range of the 
cavity destined to receive the more important organs of the polype; in the 
interspaces between the stars being reticulated and not tubular; and in the 
laminz parallel to the surface, whereby a side fracture exhibited irregular lines 
indicative of renewed growths. 
From the Astree of Ehrenberg the fossil was distinguished by the limited 
number of lamellae, by the stars not being necessarily in contact, and by the 
mode of developing additional stars; differences of great importance, though 
few in number. 
The reasons for considering the Bracklesham coral a Porites, rested on the 
lamelle being limited to twelve and forming complete stars ; also on the general 
internal composition ; and on the manner in which additional stellular cavities 
were developed within the area of the specimens. The lamellz consisting of 
slightly foraminated plates, and not of filaments, presented a distinction from 
the characters usually assigned to the genus ; but a specimen of Porites clavaria 
gave somewhat analogous lamelle, or irregular plates largely foraminated, 
hispid on the sides and jagged on the upper edges, where the progress of 
development had been suddenly interrupted. This plate-like feature is well 
given by Solander and Ellis or Lamouroux (Exp. Méthodique, pl. 47. fig. 2). 
Ehrenberg has proposed a subgenus, Phyllopora, for corals allied to Porites, but 
‘lamellis integris’; the want however of figures or specimens forbids a perfect 
understanding of its structures*. Though the Bracklesham fossil therefore 
did not afford that amount of conformity which would justify its being decidedly 
considered a Porites, yet its general composition appeared to warrant its being 
provisionally assigned to the genus. 
As respects the identification with M. Michelin’s description and figures, 
portions of the English coral might be selected which would differ considerably 
from the delineations in the ‘ Iconographie Zoophytologique,’ while other parts 
would afford a great agreement ; the lamellz also, though generally unequal, 
* Ehrenberg includes in his family Madreporina two genera containing recent species, Heteropora, 
equivalent to Madrepora of all other authorities, and Madrepora, the latter consisting of two sub- 
genera, Phyllopora and Porites. This nomenclature appears to be objectionable, Heteropora 
consisting essentially of Lamarck’s restricted Madrepora, and including nearly all his species, some 
undescribed corals being also added. De Blainville’s Heteropora was probably proposed about the 
same time as Ehrenberg’s, but for polypidoms belonging to a very different group; and it has been 
adopted by subsequent authorities. "To use Ehrenberg’s application of the word would lead, even if 
a new generic name were required, to great confusion. 
