ENGLISH GONIOPOR/E. 147 



probably show structures varying in ordered sequence from stratum to stratum. It is even 

 possible that in some cases the causes and the nature of the variations might be definitely 

 correlated with some of the recognisable changes which must have taken place in the environ- 

 ments. I can do no more here than call attention to such an undertaking as one of the great 

 desiderata in the study of animal life. 



Group X.— ENGLAND. 



Containing descriptions of Fossil Gonioporm from Bracklesham Bay in Sussex (Middle Eocene), and 

 from Brockenhurst in Hampshire (Oligocene, Headon Beds). 



These fossils are allied to those of the Paris Basin. The nearest French locality is 

 Coutances, in La Manche. Besides the delicacy of skeleton and the elegance of the intra- 

 calicular pattern which these corals had in common with their French congeners, we may note 

 that they had somewhat the same unfavourable environment. Both the Coutances fossils 

 seem to have been attached to organisms, probably vegetable, indicating thereby that they 

 had no solid rock to rest upon. The same is true also of the majority of the Paris Basin 

 forms. And here in Bracklesham Bay the stocks are always attached precariously to what 

 I judge to have been sparsely scattered pebbles of different sizes and of varying stability. 



141. Goniopora Sussex (i)l. (PI. X 6 . figs. 4-7.) 



[Bracklesham Bay, Sussex (Middle Eocene) ; British Museum.] 



Astrcea websteri, Bowerbank, Mag. Nat. Hist. (Charlesworth), iv. (1840) p. 24, figs. A and B.* 

 Bahama websteri, M.-E.& H., Brit. Foss. Corals (Mon. Pal. Soc.) (1850), p. 38, pl. vii. figs. 1 and 1 i.f 

 SiderastraM websteri, Lonsdale in Dixon's Sussex (1850), p. 138, pl. i. fig. 5 a-e.% 

 Litharaia webskri, Duncan, British Fossil Corals (Mon. Pal. Soc.) (1866), pl. iii. fig. 4.§ 



This name applies to a group of corals which seem to be very closely allied genetically. 

 They show, however, so many variations that no single detailed description could possibly 

 cover them. The only points which they seem to have in common are contained in the 

 following description. 



* The figure of the magnified calicle appears to represent a specimen with calicles somewhat 

 like those figured in Pl. X'. fig. 7, but without columellar tangle. See remarks on specimen No. 30 

 in this Catalogue, p. 152. 



f These figures are good, but the wall is wrongly represented in the vertical section. 



| These figures appear to be of specimens Nos. 1, 2, 23 and 29 in this Catalogue (= figs. 5a, 

 be, 5b, c, d, and 5, respectively). The morphology of the skeleton was not understood, hence they 

 are not very accurate. 



§ This figure seems to be a copy of part of one of those above referred to from Milne-Edwards, 

 but is even more incorrect. The septa are all drawn free, and sloping with a convex curve evenly 

 into the fossa. 



U 2 



