82 Mr. A. W. Waters on 
zocecia, as well as the ovicell would, if considered alone, 
place Spherophora fossa with Holoporella, a genus which I 
separated from Cellepora. 
A specimen of Stichoporina reussi, Stol., from Latdorf, 
given to me by Dr. Pergeus, has a pit as described, and the 
zocecial opening as first seen is round or slightly oval, but 
on looking down the peristome the lower edge of the oral 
aperture is found to be nearly straight (0:08 mm.) and this 
is also the case in Batopora (text-fig. 1, f, 9). 
Although there are these similarities between S. reussi 
and Batopora multiradiata, the underside of S. reussi shows 
the zocecial shape and is not filled in, also the early growth 
must have been different. In my specimen of reussi the 
zocecia near the pit are raised, whether because they are 
larger or because a second layer is commencing cannot be 
decided from the specimen—at any rate, the inner raised 
zocecia are directed towards the pit, while the outer ones 
are directed away from it. Canu* has united S. reuss2 and 
Batopora multiradiata as one species, which does not seem 
to be the case, nor wiil they probably remain in the same 
genus. Canu says “unilamellaire,’ but B. multiradiata is 
bilamellar. This examination shows that Koschinsky was 
not right in uniting his species of Stichoporina with 
Stoliezka’s, for none of Koschinsky’s have a pit, besides 
which, the oral aperture of Koschinsky’s species is much 
larger with a distinct contraction at each side, so that 
S. simplex, S. protecta, 8. crassilabris, and S. bidentata, Kss., 
must be placed elsewhere, and they seem to agree with 
Mamillopora, Smitt. 
Nevianit published a paper on Stichoporina, though now 
most species referred to seem to belong to the genus 
Mamillopora. The reason for separating them from Sticho- 
porina has been given, and in none other that Neviani 
mentions is there a pit. Fedora edwardsi, Jull., is a hollow 
cylinder, as are also Kionidella (Discoflustrellaria) dactylus, 
d@’Orb., and F. excelsa, Kosch., though with a small lumen, 
and both seem to belong to Mamillopora. 
Canu {, speaking of Stichoporina reussi, Stol., says ‘‘ ances- 
trule membraniporoide,” but are we yet correctly acquainted 
with the ancestrule ? 
The genus Prattia, @Archiac, I should place under 
Mamillopora, though Canu§ has left it as Prattia, and 
* Bry. Tert. p. 100. 
+ “Nuova sp. foss. di Séichoporina,” Bull. Soc. Rom. per gli Stud. 
Zool. vol. iv. p. 1 (1895). 
{ Bry. Tert. p. 100, pl. xi. figs. 16-18 (1907). 
§ “Bry. du Sud-Ouest de la France,” Bull. Soc. Géol. de France, 
ser. 4, vol. x. p. 854 (1910). 
