H. F. Tomes — British Cretaceous Madreporaria. 301 



is precisely that of Bnthijcijathas, and is not characteristic of 

 Trochocyathus connlus. The comparatively feeble development of 

 the colur.iella is also evidence in the same direction; hut what is 

 most conclusive is the fact that unquestionable specimens of Batliy- 

 cyathvs from the Folkestone Gault, when much worn and the wall 

 and spreading foot partially or wholly absent, are undistinguishable 

 from the Cambridge specimens, which, it should be remembered, 

 are very rarely anything more than casts of the interior. It was 

 Mr. Jukes-Browne, however, who pointed out that the Cambridge 

 coral could no longer be retained in the genus Smilotrochns, and he 

 subsequently showed that the so-called Smilotrochns angulatiis must 

 also be removed from that genus. Of the latter so-called species 

 I can only say that I can follow Mr. Jukes-Browne in that con- 

 clusion, having observed in some of the Cambridge specimens the 

 evidence of a small columeMa near the lower end of the coral. 



Cyclocyatiius Fittoni, Edw. & Haime. 

 Micrahacia Fittoni, Dime. : Supp. Brit. Fos. Cor., 1870, pt. ii, No. 2, 

 p. 37, pi. xiv, figs. 6-9. 



The specimen which I mentioned in \i\y former paper as having 

 been received from Dr. S. P. Woodward still retains its label in 

 his handwriting : " Cyclocyatiius Fittoni : Gault, Folkestone." It 

 came to me in 1862, and has never been out of my hands, and 

 every endeavour to obtain another specimen has proved futile. 



The description and figure of Micrahaciit Fittoni by Professor 

 Duncan appeared in 1870,^ but it is worthy of remark that in 1884, 

 a year before the date of my paper,^ he expressed some doubt as to 

 the generic relationship of the type-specimen. There can be no 

 doubt from the very close resemblance between my specimen and 

 the figure of Micrahacia Fittoni as to the specific identity of the 

 two specimens ; and that there is a columella and pali in the one is 

 beyond all doubt, while in the other the whole of the centre was so 

 much obscured by extraneous matter that it is impossible to say 

 what there may have been. The occurrence of only two specimens 

 in the Folkestone Gault indicates the rarity of this form, whether 

 we regard it as a variety of Cyclocyatiius Fittoni or a distinct species. 



Trochocyathus conulus, Phillips, sp. 

 Caryopliyllia conulus : Phill. lU. Geol. Yorks., 2iid ed., 1835, pi. ii, 



fig. 1. 

 Turbinolia conulus : Mich. Icon. Zooph., 1840, p. 1, pi. i, fig. 12. 

 Irochocyatlius conulus. Edw. & Haime : Brit. Fos. Cor., 1850, p. 63, 



pi. ii, fig. 5. 

 Smilotrochns elongatus, Duncan : Supp. Brit. Fos. Cor., pt. ii, No. 2, 



p. 36, pi. xii, figs. 10-16; pi. xiii, figs. 10-12. (Not 



Jukes-Browne : Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, 1875, vol. xxxi, 



p. 303, pL xiv, figs. 14-16.) 

 Smilotrochns cylindricus, Duncan: Supp. Brit. Fos. Cor., 1870, pt. ii. 



No. 2, p. 36, pi. xiv, fig. 16. 



1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, 1884, p. 565. 



2 Geol. Mag., 1885. 



