408 Dr. R. Schafer—On Phillipsastrea, @ Orb, 
examined in the Museum at Cambridge, in the British Museum and 
in my private collection, there was not a single one which could be 
classed as Phillipsastrea tuberosa, except the single specimen which 
formed the type of M‘Coy’s Sareinula tuberosa. 
This specimen is not very well preserved. It is much weathered 
and traversed by several fissures, which have been again closed by 
infiltration. Since it had been figured in Brit. Paleeoz. Fossils, pl. 
3b, fig. 8 and 8a, the preparation of sections was impossible with- 
out destroying some of the figured parts. I was therefore obliged 
to confine myself to the study of those parts which may be seen on 
the surface. The arrangement of the septa is exactly the same as in 
Ph. radiata. Here also the opposite septa occasionally join and form 
a continuous line through the calicular fossa. Other of the longer 
septa join them also. On p. 403, Fig. 4-6, are diagrams of corallites 
prepared from the type specimen at Cambridge. 
M‘Coy’s figure is not quite exact and does not faithfully represent 
the course of the tabule. The arrangement of the vesicles is essentially 
the same as in Ph. radiata, the tabule are cone-shaped, or bent upwards 
in the middle part of the central cavity. Altogether they present the 
same appearance which is occasionally presented by Ph. radiata. If 
Ph. tuberosa be really a separate species of Ph. radiata, the differences 
are certainly extremely small. But unless a further specimen be 
found, which may undoubtedly be classed with the type-specimen 
I think we should be right in referring it to Ph. radiata and looking 
upon it only as a variety, or as the extreme stage in the development 
of mammillated corallites, the tabule of which are cone-shaped and 
bent upwards. 
Concluding Remarks.—I have endeavoured to prove in my in- 
vestigations that the two species Phillipsastrea radiata and Phaillips- 
astrea tuberosa, in which a columella was supposed to be present, 
do not possess one. Consequently there is no important difference 
between the genera. Smithia and Phillipsastrea, and we must, ac- 
cording to Kunth, unite the genus Smithia with the prior genus 
Phillipsasirea. 
Lastly, some general remarks on the relationship of the genus 
Phillipsastrea. 'The genus Phillipsastrea is on the one hand closely 
related to Acervularia. Frech' declared both genera to be so closely 
related and the differences so slight that he proposed to unite them 
under the name Phillipsastrea ; this proposition, however, has not 
been accepted by Steinmann, Neumayr and Barrois in their most 
recent publications. On the other hand, frequent mention is made 
of relationship between Phillipsastrea and Heliophyllum. This 
relationship is assumed chiefly from the fact that in certain species 
of Phillipsastrea the septa are crossed by conspicuous cross-bars 
or denticulations, just as in Heliophyllum. The same phenomenon 
has also been observed in different species of Acervularia. Our 
knowledge of the internal structure of the different species of 
Phillipsastrea and Heliophyllum is, however, not sufficient to allow 
' F. Frech, Korallenfauna des Oberdevon in Deutschland, Zeitschrift der 
deutschen geol. Gesellschaft, vol. xxvii. p. 44, Berlin, 1885. 
