Dr. R. Schifer—On Phillipsastrea, d’ Orb. 407 
tabulee and vesicles beneath itself, we shall see that the latter 
structure must have the same histological origin as the sclerobasis ; 
that is to say, it is the secretion of that part of the ectoderm which 
invested the deepest parts of the calicular fossa. In the tabulze 
and vesicles then the calcification could only take place from below 
upwards; the septa, on the contrary, were arched over by the 
ectoderm, and the calcification could continue both upwards and on 
either side. 
PHILLIPSASTREA TUBEROSA, M‘Coy sp. 
(Sarcinula tuberosa, M‘Coy, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 2nd series, vol. iii. p. 124, 1849). 
Spec. Char.—Corallum massive, composite, astreiform. The 
upper surface covered with irregular tuberose projections, separated 
by flat or concave spaces. Corallites very irregularly arranged. 
Distance from centre to centre of the calices 5mm. to 15mm. 
Circumference of calicular fossa prominent; consequently the 
upper surface looks mammillated. Diameter of calicular fossa 
24mm. to4mm. Depth of calicular fossa 1mm. Septa very thin, 
about 82, confluent with those of the neighbouring calices. Septa 
alternately longer and shorter, the shorter ones reaching only a very 
short way into the calicular fossa. In many corallites some of the 
longer opposite septa join, and thus occasionally produce the ap- 
pearance of a stout, laterally compressed columella (false columella). 
Vesicular tissue, closely resembling that of Phillipsastrea radiata, is 
developed between the septa. The tabule are cone-shaped, and 
bent upwards in the middle part. 
Observations and Remarks.—This species was founded by M‘Coy,' 
for a specimen from the Carboniferous Limestone of Derbyshire, 
which is now in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge. He called 
it Sarcinula tuberosa. Messrs. Edwards and Haime afterwards 
accepted the species as Phillipsastrea tuberosa,? though not without 
some hesitation. They write thus (loc. cit.): “Cette espéce ne 
différe peut-étre pas de la Ph. radiata.” I had an opportunity of 
studying the original specimen of M‘Coy and Edwards and Haime 
in the Museum at Cambridge. A comparison of this specimen with 
the type specimen of Sarcinula placenta, M‘Coy, certainly discloses 
such striking differences that a separation into two species appears 
to be well founded. Less noticeable is the difference between the 
type-specimens of Sarcinula Phillipsi, M‘Coy, and Sarcinula tuberosa, 
M‘Coy. Besides the original specimens of Ph. radiata, there are 
others both in the Woodwardian Museum and in the British Museum, 
the surface of which is more or less mammillated, so that, although 
they belong to Ph. radiata, they nearly approach to Ph. tuberosa. 
Messrs. Edwards and Haime appear, therefore, to be justified in 
expressing a doubt as to the validity of Ph. tuberosa. Further it 
is remarkable that amongst all the numerous specimens which I 
1 M‘Coy, Onsome New Genera and Species of Paleozoic Corals and Foraminifera, 
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 2nd ser. vol. iii. p. 124, London, 1849. 
* Milne Edwards and J. Haime, Pol. Foss. des Terr. Paléoz. p. 449, Paris, 
1851. eS 
