to Micro-Paleontology. 295 
Again, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that M‘Coy, in 
his great work (Brit. Pal. Foss. p. 82), applied Phillips’s 
name of “twmida” to the form which I understand to be 
Stenopora Howsti. ‘This is shown partly by the fact that 
M‘Coy only refers to one of Phillips’s figures, that being 
fig. 52 (by obvious misprint given as fig. 25), which I regard 
as a figure of S. Howsi; and partly by the fact that his 
description applies admirably to S. Howszi, but not at all to the 
form which | take as MW. ? twmida, Phill. Hence, if this view 
be accepted, the name of Stenopora tumida, M‘Coy, must be 
omitted from the synonymy of J/.? tumida, Phill., sp., and 
must be given as a synonym of Stenopora Howsit, Nich., as 
the retention of the specific name of ¢wmida for the latter 
would lead to hopeless confusion. 
It would, further, seem probable that under the name of 
Cheetetes tumidus, Milne-Kdwards and Haime included more 
than one form. The figure which they give in the ‘ British 
Fossil Corals’ (pl. xlv. fig. 3) is apparently referable to 
Stenopora Howsiw; but they probably had also examined the 
true M.? tumida; and they certainly included under the same 
title the wholly distinct type described by De Koninck as 
Calamopora inflata, and by M‘Coy as Stenopora inflata. It 
is therefore only in part that Chetetes tumidus, EK. & H., can 
be quoted as a synonym of Monticulipora? tumida. 
Finally, [may just add that I am inclined to think that 
the form described by Prof. De Koninck as Monticulipora 
twmida is really quite distinct from either of the British forms. 
M. De Koninck was good enough to furnish me with authentic 
specimens of the Belgian type ; and though they are unfortu- 
nately in a state of preservation which has prevented my 
making thin sections of them, I have been led to the above 
conclusion from their general appearance, and especially from 
the fact that the corallites of the peripheral region are inclined 
to the surface at a much more acute angle than is the case in 
M. ? tumida or in S. Howsit, while that region of the corallum 
is itself much more contracted in proportion to the size of the 
stems. 
4, Remarks upon 'Tabulipora Urii, Young. 
Since the foregoing was written, I have had the opportu- 
nity of reading the interesting paper which Mr. John Young 
has just published (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Sept. 1883, 
p- 154) upon a Monticuliporoid from the Carboniferous rocks 
of Scotland, which he identifies with Cellepora Uri, Flem., 
and places in a new genus under the title of Tabulipora. 
