PORITIDAE. 5 



ing to the definition, are those figured by Pratz for Cyclolites and Tliamnastrcea* and^these 

 are certainly not primitive corals, nor do they belong to the Poritidae, as can be shown' by an 

 analysis of their structure, t Led astray by this theory, Milne-Edwards and Haime ignored 

 Dana's important diagnosis of the essential difference between Poritids and Madreporids. 



In their hands, therefore, the family was artificially increased, and appeared in 1860 in 

 1 Les Coralliaires,' vol. iii., as follows : — 



POKITIDiE.! 



POBITINA MoNTirORIN^. 



Porites, Elwdarcea, Goniopora, Montipora, Psammocora. 



Litharcea (Tert.), Protarcea (Silur.), Alveopora (Rec), 

 Microsolena (Jur.), Mwandrarwa (Ool.), Coscinarwa (Rec), 

 Pleurodictyum ? (Dev.), Dictyophyllia ? (Cret.). 



Of these only Porites, Elwdarcea, Goniopora, and Liiharma are true Poritids, and the last 

 three are here united into one genus Goniopora, which with the genus Porites constitute the 

 family Poritidse. 



In his ' Introduct. a l'etude des polypiers fossiles ' (1858-61) Fromentel proposed a modifi- 

 cation of the system of Edwards and Haime, dividing each division into Monastraeae, Dyastraeae' 

 Synastreeae, and Polyastraeae. Among the Perforata polyast. occur the Poritinae M.-E. & H., 

 with Alveopora and Goniopora left out and Holarcea added. 



In 1865, Professor Verrill § sketched a new classification of the order Madreporaria, the 

 fourth suborder being Dana's Madreporacea. We here find the relationship between Poritidae 

 and Madreporidae reaffirmed, and in 1866 || the families were arranged in the following 

 order : Madreporidae, Poritidae, Eupsammidae. 



In arranging the family itself he If endeavoured to reconcile Dana with Milne- Edwards and 

 Haime. He agreed with the latter that Alveopora was a Poritid, but thought with Dana — and 

 in this they were supported by Saville-Kent ** — that it was at the same time a Favositid. He 

 therefore proposed to divide the family into three sub-families, Poritinae, Alveoporinae, and 

 Favositinae. This arrangement is quite artificial. 



Professor Verrill increased the number of genera contained in the family by the addition 

 of Synarcea, tt but rejected the genus Neoporites proposed by Duchassaing and Michelotti 

 in 1864 in their description of corals from the Antilles. 



In 1866, %% Reuss described fossil Poritids (Eocene) from Java and gave an account of a new 



* Palaeontographica, xxix. (1882) pi. xiv. figs. 2 and 10. 



f For a further criticism of this theory, see Journ. Linn. Soc, xxvii. p. 137. 



X For those of the following genera which, in this Catalogue, are not accepted as belonging to 

 the Poritidse see the list, p. 9. § Proc. Essex Institute, iv. p. 145. 



|| Trans. Conn. Acad. i. (1866) p. 503. f Amer. Journ. Sci., iii. (1872) p. 194. 



** Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vi. (1870) p. 386. 



If This genus cannot really be separated from Porites, as will be shown in Vol. V. dealing with 

 that genus. XX Reise der Ost. Fregate ' Novara,' Geol. Theil, Band ii. 



