﻿TUBEECULATE MONTIPOR^. 137 



"Lamarck" (= Pallas). It is said to be very similar to Dana's M. hispida, with which it 

 might be akin. Dr. Klunzinger, following Dana, points out the difference between the con- 

 cave explanate portion and the peculiar convex form of the basal plate of M. hispida, from 

 the summit of which the branching lobes arise. I am inclined to think that this difference is 

 very important ; the dish with turned up edges would appear to signify that the chief upward 

 growth of the stock was typically round the edges, while in M. hispida the chief growth is in 

 the towering lobes, the explanate portion being a secondary production due to downward 

 streaming of the living layer. 



On my suggested identification of this type with the earliest recorded Montipore, the 

 Madrepora monasteriata of Forskal, see below under the next heading. 



114. Montipora monasteriata. 



Madrepora monasteriata, Forskal, Desc. Anim. (1775) p. 133. 



Madrepora rtwmstriata, Linn., ed. 13 (1788) p. 3773. 



Non Montipora monasteriata, Milne-Edwards and Haime, Cor., iii. (1860) p. 208. 



Non Montipora monasteriata, Klunzinger, Kor. (1879) p. 34, Taf. vi. 2, v. 9, x. 6. 



Description. — Corallum unknown. Calicles crowded, separated by the tubercles. 



Ccenenchyma rises into lanceolate, tongue-like tubercles, the size of mustard seeds, but 

 erect, flattened, and about twice as long as the diameter of a calicle ; four to five around each 

 calicle, individual tubercles being common to adjacent calicles. The coral, though reticulate 

 and spongy, is yet very rough. Eed Sea. 



This is the essence of Forskal's description of the earliest recorded species of Montipore. 

 Nothing further is known of it than that which we can gather from this account. It is, 

 however, quite certain that Forskal's specimen belonged to the tuberculate gi-oup : lanceolate 

 tongues the si^e of mustard seeds, grouped in fours or fives round the calicles, leave little doubt 

 as to this. Eecognising this, we are at once enabled to form a judgment of the synonymy. 

 MUne-Edwards and Haime, for instance, would make it synonymous with the spumosa of 

 Lamarck, which was founded on Knorr's figure (see p. 71), and, omitting all mention of the 

 essential feature in Forskal's description, viz. the lanceolate tongues, wrote " les saUlies 

 cosnenchymateuses sont en general grosses, peu saillantes et ordinairement peu nombreuses." 

 This description clearly refers to Knorr's figure. 



Still earKor Ehrenberg had suggested with a query its identification with his own 

 Porites ( = Montipora) circumvalkita. This suggestion was adopted by Milne-Edwards and 

 Haime in their synonymy, and more recently still by Klunzinger, who claimed that the 

 «ssential feature of Forskal's type is shown in Ehrenberg's specimen, which he has redescribed 

 and photographed. On carefully examining these descriptions and figures, it seems to me that 

 M. circumvallaia was not a tuberculate Montipore at all. The eminences of the ccenenchyma 

 are " very blunt " (the opposite of lanceolate tongues), " broad, leaf- or scale-like," and often 

 forming " protruding under lips to the calicles." On the upper portions of the stock these may 

 surround the calicles, but in such a way that the individual papillfe are still recognisable. 

 This description agrees well with the photographs ; both description and photographs seem to 



T 



