GARDINER—MADREPORARIAN CORALS. 263 
widely separated Groups. Whether these originated from one line or a series of lines of 
evolution we find no indications, but I am disposed to think that there was only one line 
which was caused to, as it were, burst out, possibly by the acquirement of a new method 
of nutrition of great importance, 7. e. by commensal alge. The final results of this 
outburst we find in the colonial genera of the family. 
With regard to the distribution of the family Fungiide, we can only point out that its 
species are all Old World forms, and, except the Cycloseris- and Diaseris-groups of 
Fungia, that they are all essentially dwellers in the shallowest water on coral-reefs, not 
more than a few fathoms deep. The distribution of the species clearly indicates that the 
centre of the Pleistocene outburst, referred to above, was situated in the shallowest waters 
of the East Indies. 
IIT. Genus Funeta, Lamarck. 
Déderlein, “ Die Korallengattung Fungia,’ Senckenb. naturfors. Gesellsch. Abhandl. 
XXvi. pp. 1-162, tt. i—xxv. (1902); and Vaughan, “ Recent Madreporaria of the 
Hawaiian Islands and Laysan,’ U.S. Nat. Museum Bull. 59, pp. 110-134, 
pls. xxvii—xxxvii. (1907). 
Mr. T. Wayland Vaughan’s careful re-examination of the Fungia in the U.S. National 
Museum for the purposes of the above report called for a revision of the specimens 
in the Cambridge Museum, together with the examination of those collected by the 
Expedition. I have also included in the report certain specimens obtained. by the late 
Mr. F, P. Bedford at Smgapore and by Mr. C. Crossland in the Red Sea off Suez and 
Sawakin. In all, I have examined about 480 specimens, identified with 19 out of the 
33 species which at present seem to me to comprise the genus. 
The examination of this large number of specimens has shown me that Déderlein and 
Vaughan are correct, in the present state of our knowledge, in absorbing the genera 
Cycloseris and Diaseris into Fungia. Vaughan’s examination of the whole question is 
masterly, and, as my investigation of my specimens has been conducted on parallel lines 
and leads to absolutely the same conclusions, I will not restate them but merely refer the 
reader to Vaughan’s paper. It is still possible, however, that there may be important 
differences between the polyps of the three so-called genera, and authors will probably 
differ in opinion as to whether the peculiar mode of reproduction in some forms is 
sufficient to separate them as the genus Diaseris. 
Déderlein places 6 species in his Patella-group, but F. erosa should, I consider, be 
absorbed into F. patella, having no really distinguishing characteristics. Of the 
remaining five he records no Diaseris-forms of F. costulata and F. elegans, and is obviously 
doubtful of that of F. cyclolites*. In his synonymy of &. patella the Diaseris-form is 
F. fragilis, Alcock. On this question Vaughan remarks: “The two specimens (of 
* Vide Tenison-Woods, Proc. Linn, Soc, N.S.W. v. p. 459, pl. xv. figs. 1, 2 (1881). I must confess my complete: 
inability to identify this species from the description; the figures are absolutely worthless. About 60 specimens 
were obtained, so that it is a true Diaseris-form, but it is not that of F. cyclolites so far as I can see. The Australian 
Museum, Sydney, and the Zoological Department of the University have declined to lend specimens for proper 
examination. 
