Actinology of the Atlantic Ocean. 107 
Recent and Mesozoic corals with the Paleozoic forms, in 
which the same structure is often retained and easily enough 
distinguished. 
Stenocyathus vermiformis, Pourtalés.—Prof. Duncan con- 
tends “ that it is hardly conceivable that they [Pourtalés and 
Lindstrém] are treating of the same species.” I have now, 
when I write this, and had also when I described the species, 
three specimens of S. vermiformis, sent from Pourtalés him- 
self, named in his own handwriting Canocyathus? vermi- 
Sormis, which was the first denomination given to the species. 
I cannot but see, even now on renewed examination, that his 
specimens and mine belong to the same species. Prof. Dun- 
ean, who must have seen so many specimens of living and 
tossil corals, ought certainly to be aware of their great varia- 
bility—how some specimens take the shape of a regular cone, 
while others of the same species are crooked and vermiform ; 
and consequently he ought not to be so much astonished, as he 
seems to have been, that I have placed turbinate and vermi- 
form corals together. It is indeed more easy to reconcile my 
specimens with those of Pourtalés and with the fig. 12, pl. i11., 
in his ‘ Deep-sea Corals,’ than to identify the figures 1 and 2, 
pl. i., in the same memoir with those given on pl. in. figs. 11 
and 12. Judging from these it really seems as if there had 
been two different species, one of which tallies with those 
described by me and with the specimens sent from Pourtaleés. 
The latter author, in ‘ Deep-sea Corals,’ p. 92, explanation of 
figures, says also that the calicle of fig. 12, pl. ill., is more 
common than that of pl. i. fig. 2. Moreover, I have now made 
a section near the wall of one of the specimens sent by 
Pourtalés, and it does not in any way differ from fig. 9, 
p. 20, in my paper. It depends, of course, much on the state 
of preservation of the coral whether this dissepimental trellis- 
work is left or not, as in the lower and older parts of the 
coral, where it may have disappeared through solution or 
other changes. 
At present my time and the materials at hand do not admit 
of my entering further into the questions raised by Prof. 
Duncan’s criticism, or attempting to settle finally some of the 
moot points, which would require more figures and more re- 
search than I can now bestow upon them. I have only 
defended my statements and views against him, and now 
leave to the unbiassed reader to decide on which side the 
“very hasty criticism ”’ lies. 
S* 
