GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE CANAL ZONE. 373 



parts, as seen in sections figured by Dana,-seem to ho partly due. In other parts the 

 structure is nearly as in 0. annularis, to which it probably belongs, though there are 

 differences in the sections not due to infiltration. Its septal arrangement is the same 

 as in ordinary specimens of the latter, those of the third cycle being distinct, but 

 narrow and thin. The borders of the calicles seem to have been but little raised, and 

 the septa rather thinner than usual, and not much exsert, but the poor condition of 

 the specimens renders these characters rather uncertain. 



The calicles are rather smaller (2 to 2.5 mm. in diameter) than is usual in 0. annu- 

 laris. The thin septa are in three regular cycles; those of the third cycle are very 

 thin and reach only one-fourth or one-third to the columella, wliich is well developed. 

 The septa are a little thickened at the wall; their faces are only slightly gi-anulated. 

 There are a few, irregular, small teeth on their inner edges where best preserved; 

 upper ends are all worn off; some have a paliform tooth at the base. The costae are 

 well developed, inosculating, with irregular exo thecal dissepiments between them, 

 as in 0. annularis. But in some vertical sections the walls appear as narrow, solid 

 structures (where unaltered); in the sections the columella region is loosely tilled 

 with stout ascending trabeculae; the endotheca consists of small, very thin, nearly 

 horizontal dissepiments, inclining downward a little, and often in two series. No. 

 4266. 



Their origin is uncertain, but it appears to be West Indian. They are in the same 

 beach-worn state as several other types of West Indian corals studied by Professor 

 Dana. Apparently most West Indian corals, in good condition, were scarce in 

 American museums at the time when he wrote his great work. 



It appears to be a small or somewhat dwarfed variety of 0. annularis. I have seen 

 fresh specimens of a similar variety from the Florida reefs. 



This may well be identical with M. stellulata Ellis and Solander, but the latter 

 can not be determined with any certainty from the figure, which represents a badly 

 worn specimen. Its calicles, as figured, are mostly even smaller than in Dana's type, 

 and somewhat unequal in size; the walls appear to be as solid as in the latter; the 

 calicles project slightly as in annularis; 12 to 15 septa are figured, all perfect; colu- 

 mella is as in annularis. There is much more reason for calling this a variety of 0. 

 annularis than there is for identifying it with Solenastraea hyades, as Gregory has done. 

 There is no evidence that it is a Solenastraea. 



Fortunately Dana's Orbicella stellulata is a synonym of 0. annu- 

 laris and is not even of varietal importance. Professor Verrill says, 

 ''This may well be identical with M. stellulata EUis and Solander," 

 an opinion from which I emphatically dissent. The figures of Elhs 

 and Solander are of a Solenastrea (Nat. Hist. Zooph., pi. 53, figs. 3, 4) ; 

 the costae do not continue from one cahce to those of adjacent cahces, 

 and the exotheca, as is shown by the side of figure 3, is typical of 

 Solenastrea. Furthermore, in the description of the species it is 

 stated, '' inters titiis planiuscuhs scabriusculis," the intercoralMte 

 areas are not ''radiate" as in annularis. The Heliastraea stellulata 

 of Milne Edwards and Haime (see pi. 80, figs. 7, 7a, 7&) is not the 

 Madre/pora stellulata of Ellis and Solander; it is probably the same 

 as Orhicella annularis. 



There is much doubt about the Cyiiliastraea oblita Duchassaing and 

 Michelotti. The following is the original description: 



Espfece arrondie, avec des etoiles arrondies et a bord un peu eleve: cotes rares, 

 presque confluentes; les intervalles de I'une a I'autre etoile sont garnies de granu- 

 lations; la columelle est grande et papilleuse. 



