400 Dr. R. Schifer—On Phillipsastrea, d’ Orb. 
Hennahii), which contains’ many valuable remarks; especially in- 
reference to the microscopical structure. In this species the calyx 
shows ‘a false columella (‘“columellarian tubercle,” as he himself — 
adds in parenthesis), but the sections show no columella. Kunth, 
therefore, doubts the correctness of making the presence of a 
columella a. distinction between the genera Phillipsastrea and 
Smithia ; moreover, according to Messrs. Edwards and’ Haime, 
Smithia also has on the tabule a columellarian tubercle, and a 
Smithia Hennahii and Smithia Bowerbarki they mention “lobes 
paliformes,” such as might produce a similar ‘structure in the ue 
to that shown in the fisure of Phillipsastrea Verneuili. 
Kunth, therefore, arrived at the following conclusion: There is 
no generic distinction between Phillipsastrea and Smithia so far as 
ther presence or absence of a columella is concerned; a columella 
might perhaps be present in Phillipsastrea Verneuili, but in this 
case it would have to be shown in a section. Consequently the four 
species separated under the name Smithia by Messrs. Kdwards and 
Haime must be referred back to Phillipsosires and the name 
Smithia must be abandoned. 
In the year 1876 Rominger’ gave a description of Phillipsastrea 
Verneuili, in which he says: “The centre of the calyx bottom is 
raised into a columellar knot, and in vertical sections of calcified 
specimens a central string of greater density can be observed, but 
it is not a solid axal column; in some species no indication of a 
columella is perceptible.” Thus it was clearly shown in a section, 
that the only species about which doubt still existed—Phillips- 
astrea Vernewli — did not possess a columella. Therefore, 
Rominger also united the genus Smithia with Phillipsasirga. In 
the generic diagnosis of Phillipsastrea he says (loc. cit. p. 128): 
“The longer lamelle unite in the centre and form a pseudo- 
columellar, nodular protuberance, but do not connect te a con- 
tinuous vertical axis.’ 
Since this time, therefore, Lindstrém, C. Ferd. Romer, v. Zittel, 
and others have united the genera. 
Mr. James Thomson,’ however who in 1883 desorbed certain 
species of Phillipsastrea from the Carboniferous rocks of Scotland, - 
remarks that the species in question possesses a columella. Of 
Phillipsastrea radiata he says (loc. cit. p. 895): ‘there is a central 
compressed prominent columella in some coralets,” and further, “ina 
longitudinal section the tabula [sic] are irregular; some are rect- 
angular, but the great proportion are bent upwards and meet in the 
centre and form a more or less discontinuous columella.” His 
figures, however (loc. cit. pl. iv. fig. 1, 1a, 1b), show no columella, only 
in one single corallite (pl. iv. fig. 1) four septa are seen to meet. 
Neither does the longitudinal section show any columella. Of 
1 C. Rominger, Geological Survey of Michigan, Lower Peninsula, vol. iii.; part ii. 
Paleontology, Corals, p. 128, pl. 23, fig. 2, New York, 1876. 
2 J. Thomson, On the Development. and Generic Relations of the Corals of the 
Carboniferous System of Scotland, Proc. Phil. Soc. Glasgow, vol. xiv. p. 394, 
Glasgow, 1883. fess 
