West- Indian Species o/' Madrepora. 29 



in the zoological collection of the Museum appear to me 

 insufficient to justify the attribution of an Indo-Pacific range 

 to M. palmata, M. cervicornis, and M. prolifera. 



It will be advisable to consider the specimens separately in 

 the order in which Brook catalogued them. 



A. palmata. 



1. No. 92. 6. 8. 213. Port Darwin. Saville Kent coll. 

 This specimen is a fragment showing no signs of the base. It 

 is a thin flat lamellum, interrupted by lacunas ; it is compara- 

 tively level on one face, but has a series of muricate branchlets 

 on the other face. 



The specimen differs from typical forms of palmata by the 

 presence of the numerous varices, of the small lacunas, and 

 by the thinness of the lamellum. These differences are perhaps 

 unimportant, but the specimen is such a fragment that its 

 evidence also is unimportant. 



2. No. 93. 4. 7. 24. Singapore. This specimen is a fine 

 palmate vasiform corallum ; the growth is irregular, and 

 lacunas pierce the lamellae. The upper surface is covered with 

 numerous small flat-topped branchlets, at the end of which is 

 a deep pit. The walls are dense. 



What specific name should be given to this coral I do not 

 propose to enquire. It is sufficient to point out that it differs 

 from palmata by the presence of the numerous branchlets on 

 the upper surface, and that some of its characters necessitate 

 its transference to a different division of Madrepora from that 

 to which M. palmata belongs. 



Brook divided Madrepora into four divisions. The first divi- 

 sion he characterized as follows : — u Madreporce with cylindrical 

 axial corallites, which project to a greater or less extent at the 

 apex of each division of the corallum; wall usually very porous, 

 margin plane, exterior more or less distinctly striateor rugose." 

 Now in the Singapore specimen each branchlet does not end 

 in a projecting axial corallite ; on the contrary, the branchlets 

 are flat-topped and the axial corallites are not exsert. The 

 specimen must therefore be transferred from the division con- 

 taining Eumadrepora to the division comprising the two 

 subgenera Isopora and Tylopora. It cannot, however, rest in 

 either of those genera as they were defined by Brook ; for 

 according to the characters of the corallum it would be an 

 Isopora, and according to those of the branchlets it would be 

 a Tylopora. 



