COEALS FROM rUNAFFTI. 31 



far the largest (in 0. sexradiis " the pali of tlie innermost crown 

 are the smallest "). 



TrocJiocyathus hastatus differs from Odontocyatlms stella in 

 being bowl-shaped, whereas the latter species is flat, in the 2nd 

 cycle of septa being large and nearly as exsert as the 1st cycle, 

 whereas in O. stella the 2nd cycle is least exsert of all but the 

 quaternaries, and in the character of the pali. So far as can be 

 ascertained from the meagre description, T. hastatus is also 

 quite distinct from the unnamed specimen. 



There is, therefore, no question of identity of species, and I 

 have only to consider whether the Funafuti specimens should 

 be classed, along with the Siboga specimens, in the genus 

 Odontocyatlms. Having fully considered this question before 

 Dr. Alcock's paper came into my hands, I see no additional 

 reasons for altering my original opinion that the Funafuti 

 specimens should be placed in the genus TrocJiocyathus ^ 

 M,-Edw. & H., and not in the genus Odontocyathus, Moseley. 



I have no doubt that the Siboga specimens should be placed 

 in the same genus as those from Funafuti. Their affinities 

 are obvious. But I consider that Dr. Alcock is in error in placing 

 them in the genus Odontocyathus. This genus was established 

 by Moseley to receive a deep-sea turbinolid having ttvelve stout 

 spines irregularly beset with small pointed tubercles, the spines 

 corresponding to the primary and secondary costse. In the 

 Siboga and Funafuti corals there are six or five smooth spines 

 corresponding to the six primary costse. In Moseley's Odonto- 

 cyathus the twelve radiating basal ridges corresponding to the 

 twelve spines reach to the central basal scar and are covered 

 with tubercles, a feature which is absent in the Siboga and 

 Funafuti specimens. In fine, a glance at Moseley's figures 

 is sufficient to satisfy one that neither Dr. Alcock's specimens 

 nor mine have any close resemblance to Odontocyathus — though 

 all these forms come under the definition of the Trochocyathes 

 armes of Milne-Edwards and Haime. 



It was not, and it is not now, my intention to criticise Moseley's 

 genus. He said that his coral was of such a peculiar shape 

 that a new genus must be created for its reception. If we 

 accept his genus, we must regard the twelve spines and the basal 

 tubercles as diagnostic characters, for there are no others to 

 distiuguish it from the genus TrochocyatJius. These diagnostic 

 characters are not shared by the Funafuti and Siboga specimens. 



