182 nprort—i&83. 
requires confirmation. The classification, then, of these forms amongst 
the Polyzoa must be deferred, and I propose to decide against it now. 
‘ Beaumontia is distinguished by MM. Milne-Edwards and Jules 
Haime as follows :—‘“ This genus is distinguished from all other Chetetinze 
by the formation of its tabule, which are irregular or vesicular, and it thus 
resembles Michelenia, belonging to Favositine.’”’ The presence of septa 
belonging to three cycles is asserted by the same authors, and this fact 
must remove the genus quite out of the neighbourhood of septaless forms. 
‘The genera of the Cheetetinee were formerly Cheetetes, Monticulipora, 
Dania, Stellipora, Dekayia, Beaumontia, and Labechia. It has been shown 
that Stellipora, Dekayia, and Labechia are subgenera of Monticulipora, 
that Dania cannot be separated from Chetetes, and that Beawmontia has 
no correct affinity with the others, and that it belongs to another family. 
‘The genera should stand thus :-— 
CHATETINA. 
Cheetetes. Subgenus, Dania. 
Monticulipora. 4 Stellipora. 
ne Dekayia. 
9 Labechia. 
But the subgeneric names should be dropped. 
‘This result is interesting because it eliminates Beawmontia, and 
makes a compact series, the affinities of which are not Polyzoan, but 
which may be Alcyonarian or Hydrozoan.’ 
After the most careful study of species belonging to the several 
genera mentioned, and even after the study of the later investigations of 
Professor Lindstrom and Professor Nicholson, I cannot help but accept 
this early decision of Professor Duncan. I am not sufficiently versed in 
the necessary knowledge respecting the Actinozoa to assert anything 
about the Alcyonarian nature of the Chetetine. Professor Duncan 
classifies the Alcyonaria, in the same Report, p. 155, thus :—Cheetetes, 
Monticulipora, Dania, Stellipora, Labechea, and he also gives a careful 
résumé of the opinions of Professor Agassiz (pp. 132-3) respecting the 
Hydrozoan characteristics of the same group. 
There remains but little to add to the masterly way in which Pro- 
fessor Duncan (previous to the grouping of the Monticuliporide by 
Professor Nicholson) dealt with the question of the relationship which was 
supposed to exist between the Cheetetine and the Polyzoa. Since that 
time several attempts have been made to revive the classification of Jules 
Haime already referred to by Professor Duncan, and the genus Heteropora 
has been often referred to as a probable link between the Polyzoa of the 
Mesozoic and the Cheetetince of the Paleeozoic epochs. The Heteropora 
of the Oolites and of the Cretaceous I have carefully studied, but so far 
as I am acquainted with this genus, even including those species of the 
Crag, I cannot decide in favour of those who believe that there is a 
remarkable affinity between the two groups. The Heteropora may well 
puzzle the most painstaking of students, and a positive decision, either 
one way or the other, is a difficult matter. Still I cannot help believing 
that the species of this genus have nearer affinities with Polyzoa than 
with either Cheetetes or Monticulipora. 
It is at this point that the classification of E. O. Ulrich fails to con- 
vince me. I acknowledge with pleasure the care with which the author 
