296 Dr. H. A. Nicholson’s Contributions 
According to Mr. Young, this form is a dendroid coral of the 
usual type of the Monticuliporoids, but especially distinguished 
by the nature of its tabule. In the axial region the corallites 
are stated to be without tabule, while in the peripheral region 
the tabule are numerous and are perforated by ‘roundly 
crescentic ’ or “ reniform”’ openings, which are so directed 
that ‘the concave edges of the opening in branching speci- 
mens is invariably turned towards the lower end of the 
branches.” In longitudinal sections of the corallites the 
perforated tabule are stated to appear as “a series of small 
thin projecting points with a little rounded knob at their ends.” 
It would further appear from Mr. Young’s description that 
the walls of the corallites are not annulated in the peripheral 
region, and that mural pores are not present. 
The perforated tabule render it clear that this form is dis- 
tinct from that which I regard as M.? tumdda, Phill., and it 
only remains therefore to say a few words as to its relations 
to Stenopora Howstt. In so doing, the question of mural 
pores can be left out of account (as not detected in either 
form), and the only two features of importance which need be 
discussed are the tabule and the walls of the corallites. As 
regards 8. Hows?i, it is not uncommon for the central perfora- 
tions of the tabule to have one margin slightly protuberant, 
and thus to become rudely reniform ; but the curved edges of 
different perforations certainly do not point in any particular 
direction in any particular specimen, but, on the contrary, 
point in different directions. Apart from this, however, I can- 
not regard the mere presence of perforated tabule as sufficient 
to preclude the reference of Zabulipora Uri to the genus 
Stenopora, Lonsd., since these structures exist in S. Howsti, 
and probably in other species of Stenoporaas well. If, on the 
other hand, I rightly understand Mr. Young to state that the 
corallites in the peripheral region in Yabulipora Urit have 
walls destitute of annular thickenings, then, certainly, this 
form cannot be referred to the genus Stenopora, since the 
moniliform or annulated wall is the most essential character of 
the latter genus. 
Apart from the character just mentioned, Tabulipora Urii, 
Young, would appear to be extremely similar to Stenopora 
Howsii, Nich., and if they had agreed in the structure of the 
wall, I should have been disposed to regard them as undoubt- 
edly identical. Should this ultimately prove to be the case, I 
must frankly admit, however, that I shall not feel inclined to 
abandon my specific name in favour of that of “ Uri,” Fle- 
ming. Nor, indeed, should I, under any circumstances, regard 
it as advisable to resuscitate Fleming’s species, even if such 
soe 
~ 
¢ 
Bil et cy 5 Oy SR NMRA ge 
