GARDINER—MADREPORARIAN CORALS. 259 
Lithactinia, and Zoopilus), so extraordinarily closely related to each other that the 
scientific character of Vaughan’s family Fungiide can scarcely be doubted. It is a 
recent family of Indo-Pacific distribution, confined to tropical waters. It has its centre 
in the East Indies, with many species in the Red Sea, a few extending to Hawaii 
and Tahiti and one or two to the west coast of America. It is essentially a coral-reef 
family, its species confined to the shallowest water and at least assisted very materially 
in their food-supply by commensal algze, the only possible exceptions to this rule being 
a few species of the Diaseris-group and of the Cycloseris-group of Fungia, formerly 
placed in the genera Diaseris and Cycloseris. 
Of the genera of the family, Hwngia is the only simple one, and it must be regarded as 
in many respects retaining the primitive simple condition, from which all the rest have 
been derived. Of this statement there is direct evidence in all genera except Polyphyllia 
and Lithactinia, and it is not too much to assume that the statement holds for them also 
even if they are separable from Cryptabacia, which I think they are not. Fwngia itself 
has what I believe to be eight well-constituted morphological types or Groups, and it 
remains for us to consider the relationships of the colonial genera to these Groups and 
to one another. 
First, however, it is necessary to examine whether all the above genera are really 
distinct. from one another, whether all are good genera. Below I have given my reasons 
for the creation of a new genus, Déderleinia, for two species formerly placed under 
Halomitra. Sandalolitha was next founded by Quelch* on a single specimen from 
Tahiti, now in the British Museum. Studer} regarded it as a species of Halomitra, 
subgenus Podabacia, but, as will be seen later, it can scarcely belong to that genus. The 
specimen has an area on the underside, about 3 by 2 cm., very opaque and tinged with 
yellow. On part of this the scar of attachment formerly existed ; boring organisms doubt- 
less entered and the opaque appearance is probably due to the consequent decay of the 
corallum. Four out of the five so-called secondary calicles are situated over this, Of 
these five, one to the right of Quelch’s figure is distinct and one to the left is semi- 
distinct; the rest are very doubtfully calicular centres. Quelch’s interpretation of the 
long axis of the specimen, the line of the axial calicle, is altogether doubtful I regard 
both ends of this calicle as extending out on the lower side of his figure, the left one a 
quarter of the length of the specimen from its end, this being the half with regard to 
which Quelch states that a primary septum corresponds to its median axis. If I am 
correct, there is no evidence that fresh calicles develop in the long axis. The two ends 
of the specimen show enormously rapid outgrowth as compared with the centre—this 
is not indicated in Quelch’s figure,—and the characters of some of the septal teeth and 
spines show unhealthy surroundings and growth. For myself I have little doubt but 
that the specimen is a young Fungia of perhaps unknown species which has grown in 
unfavourable conditions, so that its development has been somewhat irregular. 
Cryptabacia at first sight might seem to be a form of Herpolitha of which the central 
* «Challenger’ Reports, p. 144, pl. vii. figs. 1-1 d (1886). 
t Zool. Jahrb. xiv. p. 413 (1901). 
36* 
