398 Dr. R. Schafer—On Phillipsastreea, @’ Orb. 
VI.—On PuitiipsastRz4, D’ORB., witH EsprctaL REFERENCE TO 
PHILLIPSASTREA RADIATA, S.- WOODWARD SP., AND PHILLIPSASTRZA 
TUBEROSA, M‘Coy, sp. : 
By Rupotpu ScuArer, Pu.D. 
(PLATE XII.) 
NHE genera Phillipsastrea and Smithia have long been a source 
of trouble to paleontologists, and since the establishment of 
the latter genus in 1851, it has been very doubtful in which of the 
two genera certain species of Corals should be placed. The more 
extended our acquaintance with the species belonging to both 
genera became, the more probable it seemed that the distinctions 
between them were in reality unimportant and insufficient to justify 
a division into two different genera. It was in fact proposed by 
Kunth as early as 1870 that both genera should be united under the 
earlier name Phillipsastrea. It has been stated that Phillipsastrea 
possesses a columella, while Smithia has none; upon the truth of 
this statement the retention of the two genera depends. Kunth has 
denied the existence of such a difference. Nevertheless both genera 
are still retained. From a careful study of the specimens in the 
British Museum (Natural History) and in the Woodwardian Museum 
at Cambridge, I have come to the conclusion that Kunth’s opinion is 
well founded; and in the following remarks I shall further attempt 
to show that certain species which are still sometimes described as 
having a true columella do not really possess one. 
I am indebted to Dr. Henry Woodward, F.R.S., the Keeper 
of the Geological Department in the British Museum (Natural 
History), for granting me facilities for the study of the specimens of 
Phillipsastreea and Smithia under his care, and also for the privilege 
of having sections made from them, without which their characters 
could not have been determined. I also owe Professor T. McKenny 
Hughes my best thanks for his kindness in allowing me to examine 
the specimens in the Woodwardian Museum at Cambridge. 
Before giving a description of the specimens in question, a few 
short notes on the history of both genera might not be without 
interest. 
History of the genera.—In the year 1849 d’Orbigny established the 
genus Phillipsastrea, of which he gave the following diagnosis?: 
‘¢ Phillipsastrea, d’Orb., 1847.2 Ce sont des Siderastrea, dont la 
columelle, au lieu d’étre styliform saillante, est large et divisce en 
cloisons rayonnantes, comme chez les Columnastrea.” He gives two 
species :—Phillipsastrea parallela, VOrb., 1847=Astrea parallela, 
I. A. Roemer, Verst. d. Harzgeb. 1843, p. 5, pl. 3, fig. 1.—Phallip- 
sastrea Hennahii, dOrb. 1847=Astrea Hennahii, Phillips, 1841. 
Pal. foss. pl. 6, fig. 16. 
1 A. d@Orbigny, Prodrome de Paléontologie, ete. vol. i. p. 107, Paris, 1849. 
2 This date is not correct, because though d’Orbigny’s manuscript was ready for 
publication in the year 1847, as he states in the preface, yet the book was not 
published until 1849. 
