TRANSACTIONS OF THE SECTIONS. 89 
85:26; alumina, 5:35; lime, 6:79; magnesiaand iron, traces. The most remarkable 
point, however, was the very peculiar form of the specimen, which led the authors 
to conclude that it was a chip cut artificially from the tree prior to silicification. 
The chief reasons for this conclusion were summed up as follows :—1. The specimen 
is a fragment of silicified wood, exhibiting clean and definite surfaces at each end, 
cutting directly across the fibres of the wood. It is inconceivable that the silicified 
wood of an erect or prostrate trunk, not buried in the earth, should have been sub- 
jected to any influences which could have produced a “ jomted” structure such as 
is seen in many rocks; and if the surfaces in question were not produced by any 
edge-tool, the agency by which they were formed has yet to be pointed out. 2. The 
general form of the fragment is, precisely and in the minutest details, that of an ordi- 
nary chip cut by an axe. 3. The upper of the two supposed cut surfaces is curved in 
the same way as is often seen in modern chips when the axe has been blunt or has 
been loosely held in the hand. 4. The lower surface is an approximately clean-cut 
plane, but exhibits numerous successive ledges or inequalities corresponding with the 
concentric layers of the wood. Similar parallel ledges or steps can be observed in 
any recent chip, when the axe used has been blunt; and they are due to the fact that 
the edge of the axe has made a succession of slips in cutting through the successive 
concentric layers of the wood, these layers differing from one another in hardness. 
The authors concluded, therefore, that the specimen was a chip cut by one of the 
prehistoric inhabitants of North America from one of the ancient Sequoias of Colo- 
rado by means of a copper axe. 
On Favistella stellata and Favistella calicina, with Notes on the Affinities of 
Favistella and allied Genera. By H. Atteynn Nicnorson, W.D., D.Sc., 
F.R.S.E., Professor of Biology in the College of Physical Science, Newcastle. 
In this communication the author fully discussed the validity of the genus Favis- 
tella, Hall, and its relation to the older genus Columnaria of Goldfuss. It was 
shown that the Favistella stellata of Hall was beyond reasonable doubt identical 
with the form previously described by Goldfuss under the name of Columnaria 
alveolata. Strict adherence to the law of priority would, therefore, demand the sup- 
pression of the former. It was further shown, however, that the name of Columnaria 
alveolata had by general consent become fixed upon a coral from the Trenton Lime- 
stone of America, which differed essentially from the form so named by Goldfuss in 
his original description. The author concluded that one of three courses should be 
adopted :—1. Favistella and Columnaria may be considered identical. This would 
be strict justice, but would be attended with the inconvenience that a new genus 
would have to be founded for the reception of the forms which have usually been 
regarded as typical Columnarie. 2. The genus Columnaria, as redefined by M‘Coy 
and Hall, may be adopted, only those forms with rudimentary septa being in- 
cluded in it, whilst the forms with complete septa are placed under Favistella, Hall. 
3. We may consider the development of the septa as in itself not a character of 
sufficient importance to justify generic separation. In this case it would simply be 
necessary to expand the genus Colwmnaria of Goldfuss so as to receive the forms 
assigned to the genus by subsequent writers. The genus would then include two 
. groups of corals—one with marginal and rudimentary septa (Columnaria of M‘Coy, 
all, &c.), the other with complete septa (Colwmnaria of Goldfuss and Favistella 
eal. This course appeared to the author to be upon the whole the most advi- 
sable one. 
The author enumerated the characters of Favistella stellata, Hall, and described a 
new species under the name of Favistella (Columnaria) calicina, as follows :—Co- 
rallum aggregate, subhemispheric or pyriform, rarely exceeding three inches in dia- 
meter and two in height. Corallites more or less cylindrical, rarely prismatic, from 
less than one line to two lines in diameter, averaging one line anda half. The coral- 
lites are never completely amalgamated by their walls, and are only rarely in direct 
contact throughout their entire height. On the contrary, each corallite is enveloped 
in a strong and completely separate epitheca, marked by vertical ridges and encircling 
aie and they diverge from the base in such a manner that they are usually sepa~ 
1874. l 
