Geological Society of London. 571 



What is termed the "rejuvenescence" of corals by some zoophy- 

 tologists has been long recognized as irregularity of growth, and 

 there should be no difficulty in distinguishing worn growth-rings 

 from calicular gemmation ; but this has been confounded with the 

 other condition. Oppelismilia, Dune, is retained as a subgenus of 

 Ilonilivaltia. Axosmilia Wrigliti, Edw. & H., and Montlivaltia HoUi 

 (Oppelismilia, Dune), are not identical, they are both simple corals 

 and differ from the fasciculate and compound genus JDonacosmilia, 

 E. de From. Epismilia is a worthless genus, because one can never 

 be certain that the septa were not once spinose ; moreover, the 

 presence and absence of spines and dentations on the free edges of 

 the septa are not of physiological importance, and there is no dis- 

 tinction to be made between the soft parts of the recent corals with 

 and without ragged septa. Clausastrcea consobrina, Edw. & H., is 

 not a species of Confusnstrcea. Isastrcea tenuistriata, M'Coy, sp., 

 confounded with some other form, but not by its author, is a true 

 Isastrean. Confusastrma tenuistriata, Tomes, cannot remain in the 

 genus, for it has characters which do not belong to it. Chorisastrcea, 

 de From., is not a good genus according to Milne Edwards and 

 Jules Haime, Eeuss and Stoliczka ; it makes a method of growth 

 which is common to several fossil and recent genera of primary 

 importance. Thecosrnilia gregaria and T. ohtusa are names which 

 should be retained, and the forms should be removed from C'horisas- 

 trcBa. Heterogyra, Eeuss, is a good genus. Symphyllia Etheridgii, 

 Dune, belongs to the genus with which it is associated, and not to 

 Phyllogyra, Tomes. Thecoseris is an epithecate Leptophyllia, and 

 T. polymorpJia, Tomes, is quite distinct in its morphology from Tur- 

 binoseris and Palceoseris, Dune. Cryptoccenia, d'Orb., is an imper- 

 fectly distinguished genus, and is replaced by Cyathopliora, Edw. & 

 H. Therefore Cyathopliora tuberosa. Dune, which has not a close 

 resemblance with C. Zuciensis, Edw. & H., and also C. Pratti, Edw. 

 & H., remain as good species of their genus. The septal arrange- 

 ment of what is termed Cryptoccenia microphylla, Tomes, is incorrectly 

 given. Montlivaltia caryopliyllata, Edw. & H., had not its septa 

 wrongly described by its illustrious authors ; Mr. Tomes says that 

 they made an obvious mistake, and his own accusation proves that 

 they were correct. The subject of fissiparity was not originally 

 inti'oduced by M. de Fromentel, but was well understood at the 

 time when he wrote. The walls are not defective in corals inci'eas- 

 ing fissiparously. Fissiparity and gemmation were not confounded 

 by Milne Edwards and J. Haime or by the author. Thecosmilia 

 Slatteri, Tomes, is a variety of CladopJiyllia Babeana. The figure 

 given by the author of Thamnastrcea Waltoni, Edw. and H., has been 

 misapprehended. 



Isastrcea oblonga, Edw. & H., was correctly described by those 

 authors, and no addition to our knowledge of the form has been 

 made. The genus Isastrcsa has its species budding within the calice 

 and close to the outer wall, never, as stated, between the walls of 

 calices. Eeliocoenia is a subgenus of Stylina, and differs from Placo- 

 coenia, d'Orb. Isastraa Conybearii, Edw. & H., is a good species; 



