62 Bibliographical Notices. 
Another remarkable superficial feature is the ‘‘ spiniform coral- 
lites,” peculiar blunt spine-like structures placed in greater or less 
numbers round the calices; and these are regarded, for reasons 
assigned, not merely as appendages of the corallum, but as truly of 
the nature of peculiarly modified zooids or corallites—a view differing 
from that of Dybowski, who considered them of the same nature 
as the peculiar (intramural) canals which are found in various tabu- 
late corals (see also Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. xviii. p. 92). 
Besides these curious structures, microscopic examination brings out 
the important fact that the corallum of Monticulipora is dimorphic, 
consisting of two different sets of corallites, inhabited during life 
by two different sets of zooids; this is stated by the author 
to be analogous to the structure which Mr. Moseley has shown to 
exist in Heliolites, the interstitial tubes of which were previously 
regarded as vesicular coenenchyma. 
The third chapter treats of the development, affinities, and syste- 
matic position of Monticulipora, in which the author discusses and 
dissents from its Polyzoan affinities as advocated by Dr. Lindstrom ; 
the resemblances and differences with Heteropora are compared, from 
which it is inferred ‘‘that the points of likeness between the two 
are by no means so weighty as the points of difference.” The 
affinities of Chetetes and Stenopora are considered, and also the 
Helioporidee. 
After pointing out the strong resemblances between Monticulipora 
and its allies and various undoubted corals, principally among the 
Helioporide, Prof. Nicholson is inclined to regard the Monticuli- 
poridee as an ancient group of the Alcyonaria. With regard to the 
zoological position assigned to this group, it is evident, from the 
numerous references cited throughout the work, it was quite an unin- 
tentional oversight that the author did not notice that the affinity 
now adopted by him was proposed and clearly foreshadowed by 
Prof. Duncan ten years ago, in the third report on British fossil 
corals (Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1871, p. 135), where he places amongst 
the Aleyonaria Chetetes, Monticulipora, Dania, Stellipora, and 
Labechia, and states that the last two genera, together with Dekayza, 
are subgenera of Monticulipora, and that Dania cannot be separated 
from Cheetetes. 
Prof. Nicholson also does not appear to have referred to the valu- 
able work of Milne-Edwards, ‘ Histoire des Coralliaires,’ in which 
much information is given with regard to the so-called Tabulata, 
under the Cheetetine (vol. iii. p. 269). 
With regard to the subdivisions of the group, Prof. Nicholson 
proposes to arrange under the family Monticuliporidee the following 
genera—Vistulipora, Constellaria, Dekayia, Monticulipora—the first 
three groups, for practical convenience, being retained as distinct 
genera, “in spite of the fact that they have no theoretic claim to 
such a rank.” The last genus is again divided into five subgenera, 
Heterotrypa, Diplotrypa, Monotrypa, ,Prasopora, Peronopora; the 
general characters and detailed descriptions of the illustrative species 
of these subgenera occupy the last five chapters. The majority of 
