244 bulletin: museum of comparative zoology. 



In describing the species, two additional characters of importance are stated: 

 " The pynapticulsB are well developed," and "The costse are well developed, 

 and often not continuous with the septal ends." No discussion of the charac- 

 ter of the wall is given, but both Figures 13 and 14, Plate XV., represent a per- 

 forate or synapticulate composition. Figure 18 of the same plate illustrates the 

 noteworthy condition of the costse alternating with the septa. Figure 16, repre- 

 senting a calice natural size, shows an apparently imperforate wall, though not 

 of uniform thickness, and the septa in the majority of cases corresponding in 

 position to the costse. The type species needs a new study, and we cannot 

 have a clear conception of its characters until this is made. 



Duncan, in his paper on the St. Bartholomew corals,^ described six species 

 that he referred to Turhinoseris, but no additional data on the generic charac- 

 ters are given. He speaks of the wall being *' thick" in most of the species, 

 and both mentions and figures synapticulaG between the costae. 



He considers the genus again in his Revision of the Genera of the Madrepo- 

 raria,* but, excepting the statement that the septa are solid and the wall stout, 

 no additional information is given. The genus is classed in the " Lophoseridoe,^' 

 " Funginse in which the wall is neither perforate nor echinulate," etc.^ 



From a comparison of the figures of the two species herein described with 

 those of the species of Turhinoseris from St. Bartholomew, given by Duncan 

 i:i Volume XXIX. of the Geological Society of London, the generic identity 

 of the forms is most apparent. The only possible opportunity for error would 

 be in the wall of the St. Bartholomew corals being imperforate, but I cannot 

 believe this with Duncan's figures before me. Therefore I have referred the 

 two Jamaican corals to Turhinoseris on the strength of their resemblance to 

 the species from St. Bartholomew, but whether Duncan was correct in refer- 

 ring the latter corals to that genus must be left to future work. 



Especial attention should be called to Turhinoseris jamaicaensis, as, besides 

 the synapticulae between the distal ends of the septa, quite often the septal 

 ends are solidly united by a thecal or pseudo-thecal thickening. 



The similarity in the general structural features of these two species to that 

 of Leptophyllia deserves a note. The septal structure (i. e. the septa are com- 

 posed of ascending trabeculse) is the same, except that in the species of Lepto- 

 phyllia the trabeculse are not fused together to a great extent, whereas in 

 Turhinoseris the fusion is so comi)lete or so nearly complete and septal per- 

 forations are so rare that the septa can best be considered solid. The character 

 of the columella and that of the wall (or absence of wall) in both are respect- 

 ively of the same type, the latter structure in Turhinoseris is not so loose as in 

 Leptophyllia, and, as already stated, in Turhinoseris there is in places theca or 

 pseudo-theca. The typical species of Leptophyllia are attached by broad bases. 



i Quart. Jour. Geol. Sec. London, 1873, Vol. XXIX. pp. 558-561. 



2 Jour, of the Linn. Soc. (ZoGlogy), 1884, Vol. XVIII. p. 148. 



3 Op. cit., p. 146. 



