Geological Society. 291 



other. Oroseris is a subgenus of Comoseris, which is not one of the 

 Perforata. 



Microsolena, Lmx., is one of the Fungida. 



CyathophylUa^ E. deFrom., is posterior in date to AntilJia, Dune., 

 and therefore C. oolitica, Tomes, is AntiUia ooltttca, Tomes, sp, ; 

 but as AntiUia is a subgenus of Circopliyllia, Edw. & H., the name 

 should be Gircophyllia oolitica, Tomes, sp. 



What is termed the " rejuvenescence" of corals by some zoophy- 

 tologists has been long recognized as irregularity of growth, and 

 there should be no difficulty in distinguishing worn growth-rings 

 from calicular gemmation ; but this has been confounded with the 

 other condition. Oppelismilia., Dune, is retained as a subgenus of 

 Montlivaltia. Axosmilia Wrighti, Edw. & H., and Montlivaltia 

 Holli (OppelismiUa, Dune.) are not identical : they are both simple 

 corals and differ from the fasciculate and compound genus Dona- 

 cosmilia, E. de From. Epismilia is a worthless genus, because one 

 can never be certain that the septa were not once spinose ; more- 

 over the presence and absence of spines and dentations on the free 

 edges of the septa are not of physiological importance, and there is 

 no distinction to be made between the soft parts of the recent corals 

 with and without ragged septa. ClcmsastrcBaconsohrina,'Ei^w.&,^., 

 is not a species of Confusastrcea. Isastrcm tenuistriata, M'Coy, sp., 

 confounded with some other form, but not by its author, is a true 

 Isastrean. Gonftisastrcm tenuistriata, Tomes, cannot remain in the 

 genus, for it has characters which do not belong to it. Cliorisastrcea, 

 de From., is not a good genus according to Milne-Edwards and 

 Jules Haime, E-euss and Stoliczka ; it makes a method of growth 

 which is common to several fossil and recent genera of primary 

 importance. TJiccosmilia greyaria and T. olitusa are names which 

 should be retained, and the forms should be removed from Ohorisas- 

 trcm. Heterogyra, Reuss, is a good genus. SympJiyUia Etheridgii, 

 Diinc, belongs to the genus with which it is associated, and not to 

 Phylhgyra, Tomes. Tliecoseris is an epithecate Leptopliyllia, and 

 T. polymorplia, Tomes, is quite distinct in its morphology from Tur- 

 binosens and Pakeoseris, Dune. Gryptoccenia^ d'Orb., is an imper- 

 fectly distinguished genus, and is replaced by Gyathopliora, Edw. & H. 

 Therefore Gyatliophora tiiherosa, Dune, which has not a close resem- 

 blance to G. Luciensis, Edw. & H., and also G. Pratti, Edw. & H., 

 remain as good species of their genus. The septal arrangement of 

 what is termed Gryptoccenia micropJiylla, Tomes, is incorrectly 

 given. Montlivaltia caryopliyUata, Edw. & H., had not its septa 

 wrongly described by its illustrious authors ; Mr. Tomes says that 

 they made an obvious mistake, and his own accusation proves that 

 they were correct. The subject of fissiparity was not originally 

 introduced by M. de Fromentel, but was well understood at the 

 time when he wrote. The walls are not defective in corals in- 

 creasing fissiparously. Fissiparity and gemmation were not con- 

 founded by Milne-Edwards and J. Haime or by the author. Thecos- 

 ■.nilia Slatteri, Tomes, is a variety of Gladophyllia Bahmna. The 

 figure given by the author of Tliamnastrcea Waltoni, Edw. & H,, 

 has been misapprehended. 



