24 Mr. H. M. Bernard on the 



carbcnatc of lime were for some reason restricted, perhaps 

 locally *. In tliat case the outside fleshy foot might fail to 

 secrete a solid pedestal, and then if, perhaps owing to the move- 

 ments of the animal itself, the prototheca became detaclied 

 from the substratum, it would be completely enveloped by the 

 polyp and become a small internal cup-shaped skeleton. The 

 ribs or spines coming over the edge of the cup could then 

 run right down to the extreme tip of the original prototheca, 

 as they do in typical members of the genus. If this origin is 

 correct, the genus Turhinolia will have to be regarded as an 

 extreme specialization of the " Euthecate corals/' and can 

 hardly, as it now does, give its name to a famil3^ 



It is evident then that a considerable reshuffling of the 

 j\lilne-Edwards classification is required. For instance, as 

 has already been pointed out by Bourne, the " Turbinolidse " 

 can no longer contain such purely protothecate forms as 

 FlaheUum and BMzotrochus, while the Euthecate corals will 

 have to include such forms as Galaxea, EuphylUa^ and Massa, 

 whicli were placed among the AstrreidEe by Milne-Edwards 

 and Haime. Turhinolia itself will be a specialized oft'shoot of 

 the Euthecate corals. It would, however, be premature to 

 found such morphological divisions as Protothecata, Euthecata, 

 for it miglit be discovered, for instance, that the metiiod of 

 forming a perisarcal foot round the larval prototheca has been 

 adopted more than once by different types of coral. Indeed, 

 we seem already to have discovered two ways, viz. that 

 shown in flg. 14 and that found in the Palaiozoic Calostylis 

 (fig. 13/0. 



And this brings me back again to the much discussed genus 

 Moseleya, already referred to as that which Mr. Quelch, 

 Avorking on a single specimen, took to be a Cyathophyllid. 

 Fortunately Mr. Pace was able to bring more specimens of 

 Moseleya, and I have found two others in the great collection 

 made by Mr. W. Saville-Kent on the Great Barrier Reef. All 

 these specimens are Lithoi^hyllice. The only difforence that 

 I can detect between them and the * CJhallenger ' specimen 

 lies in the fact that the latter has flatter and more open 

 calicles. This, as Mr. Pace suggests f, may be merely an 

 adaptation to the mud which we gather is present in the parts 

 where the ' Challenger ' specimen was obtained. Examination 

 of the specimens with a view to discover wliat was tiie 

 principle of protothecal modification overlying them reveals 

 the type of structure shown in the diagram fig. 15. It is 



* They are plentiful in the Barton Clavs. 



t Ann. & Mag-. Nat. Hist. ser. 7, vol. vii. (1901) p. 385. 



