in the Madreporide. 285 
presque toujours plus développé que ceux dont il est entouré et 
constitue 4 l’extrémité de chaque branche ou ramuscule, mn 
calice dit apical, qui est plus grand et plus proéminent que les 
calices latéraux.” 
Verrill (“* Review of the Corals and Polypes of the West 
Coast of America,” Trans. Connecticut Acad. 1. (1869) p. 501) 
says of Madreporaand Montipora, ‘ The resemblance between 
certain species of these two genera, both in appearance and 
structure, is very close, the chief difference being that in 
Madrepora there is usually a terminal or leading polyp at the 
end of each branch, which is not the case in Montipora.” 
Klunzinger (Korallenthiere des rothen Meeres, 1. p. 2) com- 
mences his account of Madrepora by stating that ‘“ the colony 
bears branches which are usually more or less round, and the 
terminal calicle of which is always distinguished by size or 
shape from the numerous lateral calicles which lic as lateral 
buds around the median calicle.”’ Studer (Monatsbericht 
Akad. wiss. Berlin, 1878, p. 535) does not define Madrepora ; 
but at the end of his account of those species of the genus col- 
lected by the ‘ Gazelle’ establishes a new subgenus, which he 
calls Zsopora, and definesas ‘‘Cormus foliar or lobate, the calicles 
projecting equally, distributed evenly over the whole colony, 
no specially differentiated apical calicle,’ placing under it 
Madrepora securis and labrosa of Dana. [In view of the 
unwieldiness of the large genus Madrepora, it is perhaps 
desirable that it should be thus subdivided for working pur- 
poses in this way into minor groups or subgenera, and perhaps 
WMV. elegans might advantageously be similarly set aside from 
the rest of the genus, as suggested by Milne-Edwards and 
Haime (/. c.).] Subsequently (see below, ad jin.) Studer 
suggests fission or marginal gemmation as the mode of growth 
in Jadrepora. 
Now it seems to me that while these various accounts of the 
distinctive characters of Madrepora as opposed to Montipora 
lay sufficient weight on the external facts of this distinction, 
they do not, as a rule, bring forward the underlying law of 
which these facts (¢. e. the terminality or non-terminality of 
the distal calicles) are merely an expression, viz. the character 
of the budding, which is essentially and fundamentaily diverse 
in the two cases. 
To how great an extent this essential difference has been 
overlooked seems to be strikingly shown by Dana’s remark 
above quoted, to the effect that the species of Madrepora 
without an apical calicle “ form the connecting-link between 
this genus” (Madrepora) “and the following” (Monti- 
pora). This assertion does not even find support in the 
