DESCRIPTION OF CHALK CORALS. 239 
that C. calycularis apparently includes two species, neither of which belongs to 
the genus; Ehrenberg? considers his Cladocora calycularis as the equivalent of 
Lamarck’s Caryophyllia ; but he alludes to Boccone’s Astroitis ; and Mr. Dana* 
adopting that genus, includes in it the recent coral in question, quoting Esper’s 
figure, with however an allusion to the great size of the terminal cups. From this 
statement it is evident that Lamarck’s species is not a Caryophyllia, according to 
the most recent authorities. 
For the second subdivision (b.) Ehrenberg has proposed the genus Cladocora 
(op. cit. p. 85 et seq.) ; and, for the corals composing the third, he has retained 
in a restricted sense Schweigger’s term Anthophyllum (p. 89). These determina- 
tions are believed to deserve acceptance, and they provide for the whole of La- 
marck’s species arranged in the second of the foregoing groups. 
The third group distinguished by a fissiparous process would claim therefore, 
on the grounds of numerical importance, a right to the name of Caryophyllia ; 
and Ehrenberg? on physiological characters has restricted the term to the species 
possessed of that property. Lobophyllia has been proposed by M. De Blainville* 
for an equivalent assemblage of corals; but Mr. J. E. Gray® of the British Mu- 
seum, in a recent paper on the arrangement of stony Anthozoa, retains Lamarck’s 
generic designation, making Lobophyllia a synonym, and thus recognizing, it is 
presumed, the correctness of Ehrenberg’s limitation. Mr. Dana®, on the con- 
trary, has revived Oken’s name, Mussa, for such of Lamarck’s Caryophyllia as 
subdivide; applying the latter term to Ehrenberg’s Cladocora; but Oken’s 
genus’ was proposed, it is believed, in 1815-1816, whilst Lamarck’s dates back 
to about 1801. Mr. Stokes and Mr. Broderip® have proposed to restrict Caryo- 
phyllia to those corals which have the leading characters of Caryophyllia Smathu 
of the coast of England, or Cary. cyathus of the Mediterranean ; and M. Milne 
Edwards? proposes to confine the genus to conical polyparia, fixed at the base, 
and simple or scarcely aggregated. 
Amidst this diversity of opinions it is difficult to adopt a determination which 
will meet with general consent ; and Lamarck’s definition, ‘‘ simple ou rameux,”’ 
' Beitriige, &c. p. 86. > Exploring Expedition, Zoophytes, p. 406. 
Beitrige, &c., p. 91. * Man. d’Actinol. p. 355. 
» Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., Feb. 1847, vol. xix. p. 128. 
° Expl. Exped. Zoophytes, pp. 173, 378, et seq. 
7 Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, 1815-1816. The compiler of the above memoranda cannot refer 
to the work. 
* Zoological Journal, t. iii. p. 486. ® Qnd ed. Lamarck, t. ii. p. 346. 
Ph it 
3 
