“Contributions to the Actinology of the Atlantic Ocean.” 369 
much trouble, and he illustrated it several times, and stated 
that the edges of the septa send out trabecules, uniting together 
to form a rudimentary columella, which is, however, fre- 
quently absent (1871). In 1874 the same author described 
a new genus Cenosmilia, and noticed it as a genus formed to 
receive the Parasmilie propagating by gemmation, and thus 
becoming compound. Single corals are typical Parasmilie 
with a well-developed spongy columella. 
Prof. Lindstrém does good service in explaining that the 
gemmation in both these instances is not from within, but 
that buds have attached themselves accidentally to the surface 
of the old form ; and in the ‘ Blake’ corals Pourtalés (p. 109) 
states that his alcoholic specimens show that the young one 
is upon a dead old one. ‘These are therefore clearly not bud- 
ding corals in the proper sense. 
10. Paracyathus arcuatus, Lindst.—This species Pourtalés 
has shown to belong to the genus Asterosmilia, nobis, and to 
be the species Asterosmilia prolifera, Pourt. (‘ Blake’ Corals, 
p- 109). 
Conclusion. 
1. Caryophyllia Pourtalest, nobis, belongs to the Caryophyl- 
lice, and is a good species. 
2. Leptocyathus Stimpsoni, Pourtales, was perfectly drawn 
and described by Pourtalés, who noted the pali which Lind- 
strém missed. But neither the species nor my Leptocyathus 
endothecata of Sind can remain in the genus, which is worth- 
less: they are discoid Tvrochocyatht. Prof. Lindstrém’s 
Leptocyathus ? is of doubtful position. 
3. Deltocyathus italicus is the correct name for D. Agasstzt 
according to Pourtalés and myself. Sabinotrochus apertus, 
nobis, is, according to Moseley, a correctly named species, and 
is altogether different from a Deltocyathus seen by Prof. 
Lindstrém. T’rochocyathus Rawsont, Pourtalés, is correctly 
placed, and Prof. Lindstr6m is in error. 
4. As Moseley has already pointed out, Prof. Lindstrém is 
wrong in confounding Flabellum alabastrum, Moseley, with 
Flabellum laciniatum. 
5. Haplophyllia, Duncania, and Gwynia must be removed 
from the Rugosa. 
6. The descriptions of Pourtalés and Lindstrém regarding 
Schizocyathus jissilis are not reconcilable. 
7. Stenocyathus vermiformis, Pourtalés, has not the struc- 
tures recognized by Lindstrom, 
8. Lindstrém’s observations on the budding of Calosmilia 
fecunda, Pourt., are very good and useful. 
9. Paracyathus arcuatus, Lindst., is Asterosmilia prolifera, 
Pourtaleés. 
