276 Froceedings of the Royal PhysiGal Society. 



reticulate colonies in which both the interstices and dissepi- 

 ments are cell-bearing, in contradistinction to Fenestella."^ 

 Phyllopora (King), on the other hand, contains those forms in 

 which there is no definite separation into interstices and dis- 

 sepiments, but the whole of one surface of the colony, the 

 outer or external, is celluliferous,*!- having a general and out- 

 ward resemblance to the recent Betepora. It appears, how- 

 ever, that the names Fenestella and Folypora had been indis- 

 criminately used by some writers for colonies which really 

 possessed the characters of Phyllo^pora, except that the cell- 

 bearing face or aspect of the polyzoarium was internal instead 

 of external, as expressly stated is the case by Professor W. 

 King in his genus. It is for these infundibuliform and inter- 

 mediate Fhyllopora-Yike forms that Professor L. G. de Koninck 

 has proposed his genus Frotoretepora. In a few words, it may 

 be said to differ from the allied genera as follows : from Fenes- 

 tella, by having the whole of one face of the polyzoarium cell- 

 bearing, and that the internal instead of the external, and the 

 cells limited to the interstices only ; from Polypora, by the 

 absence of a well-defined separation of the polyzoarium into 

 interstices and dissepiments, and the disposition of the aper- 

 tures of the cells on the internal instead of the external face, 

 although, like Phyllopora, the whole of the cell-bearing face 

 is celluliferous ; lastly, from Fhyllopora, simply by the fact 

 that the celluliferous aspect is internal, and not external, the 

 arrangement and disposition of the cells being exactly the 

 same. 



Protoretepora would at first sight appear to have close rela- 

 tions to the recent Retepora, and it appears to me that the 

 only reason assigned for their separation by Professor De 

 Koninck scarcely seems sufficient. He says that " in Rete- 

 pora properly speaking the branches are arranged (contour- 

 nees) in such a way as to form meshes, and not regular rows 

 of ' oscules' or fenestrules" (i.e. as in Protoretepora). I must 

 confess that after examining carefully a specimen of the 

 recent Retepora Beaniana (King), I cannot see that the differ- 

 ence pointed out by Professor De Koninck is of sufficient im- 

 portance in itself to base a generic separation on. On the 



* M'Coy, loc. ciL, p. 206. + King, loc. cit., p. 389. 



