444 H. F. Tomes — Inferior Oolite Madreporaria. 



described in his Prodromus another species under the same name. 

 MM. Milne Edwards and Haime, it appears, were misled by this 

 error, and referred the Coral sent by M. E. Beabeau, to the Synastreea 

 consobrina of the Prodromus. This in brief is the statement of 

 M. Ferry, and it is obvious that the Synastreea consobrina of the 

 Prodromus, and the Clausastrcea consobrina of MM. Milne Edwards 

 and Haime are not the same, and that the latter is the Coral for- 

 warded by M. E. Beabeau from Langres. 



As Confusastrcea had been proposed as a generic name as long ago 

 as 1849 by M. d'Orbigny, and several species placed in it by him in 

 1850, and recognized by Milne Edwards and Haime, M. Ferry ap- 

 pears to have entertained no doubt about the generic relationship of the 

 present species, and he therefore unhesitatingly places it in the genus 

 Confasastraa. An allied species C. ornata occurs also at Langres, 

 which differs only from C. consobrina in having larger calices. Of this 

 M. Ferry gives a description, in which mention is made of some 

 peculiarities which may here be noticed. The corallum, he in- 

 forms us, is formed of a successive aggregation of corallites, with 

 lateral and marginal buds, joined with one another by a rudimentary 

 wall. He further observes that the corallites are often superposed, 

 the young calices frequently implanted in the old ones, and that 

 they start from a common base, formed sometimes of a single 

 individual. 



No description is given of C. consobrina, but it is said to resemble 

 the last species, but with calices which are constantly of smaller 

 diameter. 



The specimens from the Cheltenham district correspond with 

 great accuracy with the description given of C. ornata by M. Ferry, 

 except that the calices are smaller, and their diameter agrees very 

 well with that given of those of Clausastrcea consobrina by MM. 

 Milne Edwards and Haime, which is undoubtedly the same species 

 as the Confusastrcea consobrina of M. Ferry. Budding occurs laterally 

 and in the depressions between the calices of these Cheltenham 

 examples, and the growth of one calice within another (rejuve- 

 nescence) is not unf'requent in them. This Coral appears to be 

 plentiful in the Lower Coral-bed in the Sheepscombe valley, near 

 Painswick, and I have seen a specimen taken from the Oolite marl 

 at Leckhampton Hill. 



Of Adelastrcea tenuistriata I may remark that although when un- 

 worn it is quite unlike an Isastrcea, yet when the septa are worn 

 down, it is difficult to distinguish from Isastrcea tenuistriata. With 

 the latter it has often been confounded. The marginal budding will, 

 however, always identify it. Its relationship to the fissiparous 

 genus Cladophyllia, suggested by Professor Duncan, is entirely un- 

 supported by evidence. 



Isastrcea tenuistriata, Edw. and Haime. 



Since the appearance of my former paper I have examined a 



number of specimens of this species from the Lower Coral-bed at 



Crickley Hill and Birdlip Hill, from the Lower Trigonia Grit at 



Juniper Hill near Painswick, and from other localities in the 



