28 Prof. J. W. Gregory on the 



And M. pahiata is typically, if not exclusively, West Indian, 

 not East Indian. 



It is therefore undesirable to take as the type form of 

 Linnams's species the one Madrepora known to Linnaeus, 

 Avhich he excluded from it. It seems to me advisable to drop 

 the name muricata altogether, on the ground that Linmeus 

 used that name for all the ramose Madrepores he knew, as 

 well as for ramose corals which belong to other families. 

 Thus Linnajus included in muricata the coral figured by Seba 

 on his pi. cxvi. fig. 5, which is not a Madrepora at all. He. 

 included the three corals figured by Morris * as " anomalous 

 submarine plants " ; they are equally anomalous as specimens 

 of Madrepora mitricata as defined by Brook. To take one of 

 the many corals included by Linnaeus in M. muricata would 

 be an arbitrary proceeding; but if it is to be done the name 

 ought to be applied to an Indo-Pacific species, both since 

 Linnajus assigned it to that area and as the best figures he 

 quotes are those in ' Eumphius Herbarium Amboineuse ' t- 

 Not one of the three species 31. pahnata, M. cervicorm's, or 

 M. 2>roliftra has been recorded from Amboyna. 



The Kange of the West-Indian Madsepoh^. 



The argument from the geographical distribution raises the 

 question as to the range of M. pahnata and M. cervicornis. 

 1 refer to this question with reluctance, and only at the strong 

 suggestion of Prof. Bell. 



According to most authorities the three forms or species of 

 Madrepora^ found in the West Indies and the western tropical 

 Atlantic are contined to that region. According to Mr. Brook 

 they also occur in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, ranging 

 from Tahiti to the Bed Sea. As Prof. Bell pointed out to 

 nie, the distribution of these forms as accepted by Brook is 

 very remarkable ; for all three forms are very abundant in 

 the West Indies, and they all occur very widely but very 

 sparsely distributed in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans. 

 The Indo-Pacific specimens referred by Brook to M. muricata 

 are eight in number. I examined some of them in 1895, but 

 did not see any one character by wiiich they could all be 

 separated from the W^est-lndies species, though demurring to 

 the idea that they were all members of one phylogenetic 

 .species. After a more careful exauiination of the specimens, 

 the doubts then expressed are strengthened. The specimens 



* Morris, Tlantaruni Hist. Oxon. Univ.' pt. iii. 101)9, sect. L5, pi. x. 

 11^:8. 3, 9, & 10. 

 t ] 750, pi. Ixxxvi. figs. 1 & 2. 



