﻿94 MADREPOEAEIA. 



toothed except near the growing edge, where they are swollen, irregular, numerous, and joined 

 together in every conceivable way. On older stocks, or under conditions which appear un- 

 favoui-able for rapid upward extension of the margin, the ridge system develops to an 

 extraordinary extent, the ridges themselves rising higher, meeting and fusing at aU angles, 

 the calicles being at the bottom of angular pits, 5 to 6 mm. deep. The whole surface then 

 becomes irregular and thi-ows up pointed, angular and ridged processes swelling into branched 

 knobs 5 to 6 cm. high. 



There are four specimens of this coral, all from Ponape ; two, which appear to be taken 

 from one and the same stock, were labelled by Briiggemann M. itrolifcra, in reference to the 

 extraordinarily rich development of the crenenchyma. The other two are much more simple 

 and were labelled M. lima, Lamarck. In spite of their striking superficial differences they 

 cannot be separated. The forms labelled " iwolifcra'" owe the rich development of their 

 surface coenencliyma to the peculiarities of their gro\vth, and in large measure to the fronds 

 being old and re-encrusted with fresh crenenchyma. Not only are the young fronds on these 

 portions of an old stock like the specimens named M. lima, but on one of the specimens of 

 "prolifcra" the sui-face of the old dead frond is visible upon wliich the new and rich layer of 

 ccenenchyma has developed, and it presents the simpler features of the young fronds of the 

 same specimens and of the fronds labelled " Lima." I have no doubt, therefore, that these 

 belong together. 



Briiggemann adds that his species prolifcra comes somewhere between M. coxsa, Verrill 

 (from Gaspar Straits), and M. lichenoides, Verrill, but he hardly felt confident enough to point 

 out the differences. These two species have here been included, together with M. lima, in 

 the synonymy of M. foliosa, and the question arises as to whether this type should not also be 

 included in the same list. The simple leaves (specimen h) indeed show very little difference 

 from those of M. foliosa. In section, however, there appears to be a considerable difference. 

 Whereas, in foliosa, the trabeculse are usually distinct and rise up into tubercles which, how- 

 ever, may become secondarily indistinct when fused to form ridges, in M. prolifcra true 

 tubercles are not usual ; the papillse, large and small, are composed of an uprising of fine 

 reticulum. It is worth noting, however, that there is a possibility of this extraordinary 

 richness of surface formation being the result of distortion, inasmuch as the young fronds 

 are thin and appear to curve S}'m metrically upwards like those oi foliosa, but the fronds here 

 described as typical are crumpled, nearly horizontal, and grow one over the other. The 

 fusion of papillce, formed as they are out of reticulum and not out of rigid trabeculas, perhaps 

 accounts for the rich development of the surface ccenenchyma. 



This type therefore is retained for two specimens showing a richness of surface develop- 

 ment surpassing that of all other Montipores known to me. At the same time it must be 

 expressly understood that the more normally expanding fronds show great resemblance to 

 the fronds of M. foliosa. Further, smaU crumpled fronds of M. foliosa develop a surface 

 ccenenchyma resembling that of M. prolifcra but on a comparatively insignificant scale. 



Hence this type stands really alone as a very specialised development of the foliose 

 Montiporce, the ridges and tubercules of M. foliosa having here passed into very pronounced 

 papillate ridges. 



a-d. Island Ponape. (Types.) 



e-g. Island Ponape (interesting fragments). 



