378 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVI. No. 664 



Pacific forms the concliision is reached " that 

 the trabecular, horizontal, and synapticular 

 elements which compose the skeleton ara 

 thicker and coarser in the Atlantic and West 

 Indian forms than they are in those of the 

 Indo-Pacific." 



After the descriptions are the following 

 analytical tables : 



Table I. Contains the Locality, the Depth or Geo- 

 logical Horizon, when given, references 

 to published figures, the museums in 

 5, which the type is preserved, and the page 



in this Catalogue where the detailed de- 

 scription will be found, for each form. 

 (With a supplementary Table of Po- 

 rites from no recorded locality, some of 

 which undoubtedly belong to the Indo- 

 Pacific area; the list of known forms 

 from that area is given in Vol. V., p. 

 248.) 

 Table II. Survey of the Geographical and Geo- 

 logical Distribution of the Atlantic, 

 West Indian and European fossil rep- 

 resentatives of the Genus, so far as at 

 present known. 

 Table III. Analysis and Distribution of the 

 Known Variations in Growth-form of 

 the Porites of these same regions. 

 Table IV. Analysis and Distribution of the more 

 easily definable Types of Calicle dis- 

 coverable in the same. 



In the supplement to Goniopora seventeen 

 additional forms are described. 



In concluding these remarks the reviewer 

 wishes to state that he does not agree with 

 Mr. Bernard's conclusions regarding the struc- 

 ture of the septa of Porites, and is opposed 

 to the hypothesis of serial gemmation for each 

 tabula in tabulate corals; he also considers 

 that Mr. Bernard attributes too much im- 

 portance to the geographic-number system for 

 designating forms. The existence of the three 

 factors favorable to the wide distribution of 

 shallow water species of corals seems not 

 to have been considered; these factors are: 

 (1) Shoal water or intermittent shoals over 

 extensive areas; (2) oceanic currents; (3) 

 free-swimming larvae. The reviewer, while 

 recognizing the importance of isolation in 

 causing divergence between coral faunas of 

 separated areas, insists that some species of 



corals have wide geographic distribution and 

 that there is no more reason for doubting that 

 morphological identity in corals means spe- 

 cific identity than there is for similar doubt 

 in any other group of organisms. 



Mr. Bernard discovered the principles under- 

 lying the septal arrangement for Goniopora 

 and Porites and worked out the various palar 

 formulse for the latter genus; he has shown 

 students of Madreporaria the importance of 

 studying in much greater detail the calicular 

 structure of these corals; he has pointed out 

 important calicular features that had previ- 

 ously received little or no attention; and his 

 work on the growth forms of coralla is of 

 importance. These are what the reviewer con- 

 siders Mr. Bernard's solid contributions to 

 the morphology of the poritid skeleton. The 

 descriptive work of the catalogues is of value, 

 for many forms are described in detail, ex- 

 cellent figures of a number of them are given, 

 and they are referred to definite localities. 

 No attempt was made to define species and 

 to determine their distribution, as the data 

 for siich an undertaking were considered in- 

 sufficient. However, when his contributions 

 to the morphology of the skeleton are taken 

 in connection with his descriptive work, Mr. 

 Bernard deserves congratulations on having 

 done much that will ultimately aid us in 

 understanding the systematics of these per- 

 plexing corals. 



T. Wayland Vaughan 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 



THE FIRST SPECIES RULE : AN OBJECTION 



To THE Editor of Science: Pray aUow me 

 to range myself with Dr. Bather in entering 

 a caveat against the first species rule, at any 

 rate for paleontology. It is demonstrable 

 that such a rule fails to interpret the views 

 of authors. It can be tested. There are 

 authors who have stated or obviously indi- 

 cated their genotypes; there are those who 

 have not — in fact, the same author may come 

 in both categories. Now if the former are 

 always found to have placed their genotypes 

 first then is the first species rule first for the 

 latter; but if not, then it fails. 



