108 MADEEPORARIA. 



method of labelling specimens, according to locality, is needed for the recent forms, it is far 

 more necessaiT, though I admit far more difficult of application, for the fossil. It is more 

 difficult on account of the time element which has to be introduced. What is, however, certain, 

 is that the whole of this European fossil Poritid fauna requires a close study with new 

 descriptions based upon a comparative study of the specimens now preserved in European 

 museums and waiting to be rescued from tlieir specific names. 



One point of some importance remains to be noticed. On applying our methods of 

 deciding whether a fossil Poritid is a Goniopora or a Pontes, it is remarkable how completely 

 the views of earlier writers have to be revised. So many, which were at one time thought to 

 be Pontes, have in this Catalogue to be classed as Goniopora. In Vol. IV. there are nearly 

 sixty European fossil Gonioporce, while in this Volume we have no more than seven Pontes 

 from the same region, and some of these very doubtful. Whether this lends any support to the 

 view expressed in Vols. IV. and V. that Porifes is morphologically a derivative of Goniopora, 

 by the suppression of the tertiary septa, further research can alone pronounce an opinion. At 

 the same time it must be remembered that this list is far from complete. When the specimens 

 of fossil Poritids, now in different European collections, come to be worked over, one might 

 expect that at least a larger proportion would turn out to be Porites than that here given. 



The first coral to be mentioned in this group should naturally be that called Porites 

 panicea of the Bracklesham beds of Hampshire, described and figured by Lonsdale in Dixon's 

 " Sussex " (1850), p. 156, pi. i. fig. 7. But examination of the original specimen, which is 

 preserved in the Museum, shows that it was what Milne-Edwards and Haime * described it, 

 namely, an explanate Astrceopora. 



97. ? Porites Paris Basin 1. (P. Parisiorum prima.) 

 [Auvers, Valmondois, Hauteville (Eocene).] 

 Syn. LAtharoea heberti M.-E. & H., Britt. Foss. Corals (1850) p. 39. 



Description. — The corallura is said to be a convex mass, frequently built up of superimposed 

 layers. 



The calicles are described as 3 mm. in diameter, polygonal, superficial. The walls were 

 hardly distinguishable. The septa, twelve in number, nearly uniform, wedge-shaped, were 

 thick near the walls. They were very perforated, with denticulate edges and with spine- 

 shaped lateral granulations which may meet across the interseptal loculi as synapticulte. 

 The columella is said to be weakly developed and apparently consisting only of the more 

 internal teeth of the septa. 



This is clearly one of the doubtful forms. Its description is entirely from Milne-Edwards 

 and Haime. Its twelve septa seem to fix it as a Porites, but their fusion-formula is not 

 given, hence it is impossible to be quite certain ; while lastly, the great size of the calicles 

 affords another and very serious element of uncertainty. I know of no Porites with calicles 

 so large, yet on the other hand, the twelve septa is a definite character. 



A specimen in the Museum which was labelled " Litharcea heberti " was described in 

 Vol. IV., p. 138. 



• Hist. Nat. des Coralhaires iii. (1860) p. 169. 



