ITALIAN GOXIOl'OIM:. 107 



pointed out, the only real similarity between these and the Sind corals lies in the fact that 

 they both retained the primitive growth-form of the genus (cf. Introduction, p. 23). The 

 calicles of the Sind form had, according to Duncan, hardly any columellar tangle and the septa 

 were long and laterally echinulate. 



a, b. Geol. Dep. I!. 4812 ; and B. 4813. 



Group VII.— ITALY. 



Containing descriptions and records of fossil Gonioporm from the following provinces and districts : Vv 

 (1-13) ; Verona (1-2); Alessandria (1-3) ; Turin (1-3) ; Genoa (1-5). 



83. Goniopora Vicenza Q3)l. 



[S. Urbano, Vicenza (Middle Eocene [" Calcaria grossolana "J ). | 



Pontes ramosa, Catullo (noti Reuss, see p. 110), Terr, sediment, sup. Venezie Antozoari, etc. (1856) 

 p. 77, pi. xvii. fig. 6 A, B. 



description. — Corallum forms thick shapeless columns, from the tops and sides of which 

 thin, short (1-2 cm.), shapeless knobs project like branches. 



The calicles seem to have been obsolete or only slightly pitted, separated according to 

 the figure by distinct walls, but not raised, nor thin and thread-like. In the original text, 

 they are said to be wanting or very imperfect. The septa are said to be difficult to make 

 out except under a strong lens, and then they are seen to be " very numerous." 



The last recorded fact shows that this coral, if a Poritid, was a Goniopora. That figured 

 with it by Catullo as Porites tuberosa hardly seems to be a Poritid at all. 



The name ramosa has clearly been a great snare. Nearly all the branching fossil 

 Poritids have beeii called either Porites, or Litharcea ramosa. Eeuss gave the same name to a 

 Goniopora from Crosara, but because it differed from that of Catullo, he concluded that Catullo's 

 figures were bad (see p. 110). Milne-Edwards described a Litharcea ramosa from Dax (see 

 p. 128), and Dr. Abich " identified " a branching Poritid from Persia with the Litharcea ramosa 

 M.-E. and H. (see p. 97). Dr. Eelix mentions Porites ramosa Cat. as apparently abundant in 

 the Lower Eocene of Egypt (see p. 106). Unless the corals were far more stable structures 

 in early Tertiary times than they are in modern seas, such identifications answer no useful 

 purpose whatever. 



As a further example of this method, D'Achiardi, in his Catalogue of the fossil corals from 

 the nummulitic limestone of the Venetian Alps, 1867, identified lieuss' P. nuiumuli/ica with 

 this coral.. Against this Eeuss objected in his description of the specimens . from Crosara 

 which he thought were the same as Catullo's P. ramosa. I merely call attention in passing 

 to these assertions and contradictions. Affinities are not worked out in this way 



The only Vicentine branching form in the National Collection is from a place called 

 " Fontana della Bove," and was purchased as P. ramosa Cat. : for a description of it 

 see p. 114. 



p 2 



