NO. 1401. GENERA OF SIMPLE FUNGID CORALS— VAUGHAN. 411 



In his Revision of tlie Families and Genera of the Madreporaria/' 

 it is stated that the septa are .solid and that the wall is stout, but 

 whether those characters are based on the type species or on a species 

 subsequentl}^ referred to the genus can not l)e determined. 



R. F. Tomes, in an article entitled Observations on some imper- 

 fectly known Madreporaria from the Cretaceous Formation of Eng- 

 land,'' declares that TurhinoHerh is a synonym of Lej>f(>j>Jiyllla Reuss, 

 but as he does not describe the structural details of the wall or septa, 

 he can not be considered to have proven his contention. 



Duncan, in the next volume of the same journal, pu))lishcd An 

 Answer to 01)servations on some imperfectly known Madreporaria, 

 etc., by Tomes, in which he denies the identity of Turhinoserls and 

 LeptophylUa, and says positively that "the septa [of tlie former] are 

 solid."' But Duncan does not state explicitly that this is the condi- 

 tion in Turhinoserls defronne^iteli. 



In Jul}^ 1899, Mr. Tonies published an article, 0]>servations on 

 some British Cretaceous Madreporaria, with the Description of two 

 new Species, in which'' he not onl^' places Turhinoserls in the syn- 

 onj^my of Leptophyllia^ but refers Turhinoseris defronwideli to the 

 synonymy of LeptophylUa darata Reuss, the type species of the latter 

 genus, but he does not present evidence of a convincing kind to sus- 

 tain his conclusion. Tomes identifies another specimen from the Lower 

 (xreensand, at Sandown, Isle of Wight, with LeptopliyUia irre<jidaris 

 Reuss. 



In September, 1899, my paper on Some Cretaceous and Eocene 

 Corals from Jamaica was pul)lished. In it- I pointed out the unsat- 

 isfactory definition of the genus, and added a few remarks based on 

 Duncan's original figures. Two additional species, closely related to 

 those from St. Bartholomew, were described. There I made the state- 

 ment, ''I have referred the two Jamaican corals to Turhhtoseris on the 

 strength of their reseml)lance to the species from St. Bartholomew, but 

 whether Duncan was correct in referring the latter corals to that genus 

 must be left to future work." 



Gregory, in The Corals, Jurassic Fauna of Cutch,-^ makes some 

 remarks on Turhinoserls^ basing them on Duncan's description, figures 

 and subsequent notes. He contributes no ol).seryations of his own. 



Felix, in his Anthozoen der Gosau.schichten in den Ostalpen,f/ 

 expresses doubt as to the correctness of Tomes's identification of the 



«Jour. Linn. Soc. London, Zool., XVll, 188-4, p. 148. 



6Geol. Mag., New Ser., Dec. Ill, II, 1885, pp. 550, 551. 



c Idem, Dec. Ill, III, 1886, pp. 54, 55. 



^Idem, Dec. IV, VI, 1899, p. 306. 



«Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., XXXIV, pp. 243, 244. 



/Pateontol. Indica, Ser. IX, II, Pt. 2, 1900, p. 163. 



i/ Pateontographica, XLIX, 1903, pp. 201, 202. 



