— /i63 — 



Errina Dabneyi Pourtalès. 



The spécimens of this species were found iu a bottle of spécimens col- 

 lected in tlie Azores, 56 mètres, together with a coiony of PUobothrus tiihu- 

 latus and some fragments of the caicareous Polyzoon, Jaculina Blanchardi , 

 and aiso at Fayal 5 60 mètres. The type spécimen of this species was 

 obtained by Miss Dabney at Fayal and deposited in the Zoologicai Muséum 

 at Harvard Avith the label Errina aspera. Pourtalès in 1871 slated that 

 he examined the type spécimens of Gray's species in the British Muséum 

 and came to the conclusion that the spécimens from Fayal were quite dis- 

 tinct and he gave a brief description of them in a footnote under the 

 name Lepidopora Dabneyi. The genus Lepidopora of Pourtalès was distin- 

 guished from Enina by the présence of a small iip or scale projecting 

 from the cœnenchym over the mouth of the gasteropore. Moseley examined 

 carefully some of the type spécimens of Lepidopora and compared them 

 with his own spécimens of Errina with the resuit that he came to the 

 conclusion that Lepidopora could not be separated from Errina and the 

 species attributed to it must be removed to the latter genus. 



A further sludy of thèse species lias convinced me that Moseley Avas 

 quite right and l am in agreement with liim that Lepidopoi^a must be 

 merged with Errina. At the same time I must point out that the reasons 

 that hâve convinced me of the necessity of this step are not those that 

 Moseley put forward. 



The affinities of Lepidopora Dabneyi are with the old genus Labiopora 

 rather than with the old genus Errina as defined by Moseley. 



The structure of the corallum is minutely reticulate and granular, not 

 hard and porcellanous, and there are no weli marked cœnenchymal pores. 

 Moreover the spinous processes (nariform processes of Moseley) that 

 shelter the dactylozooids bave the groove turned away from the apex of the 

 branch on Avhich they are situated. In thèse respects the species resembles 

 the species formerly placed in the genus Labiopora and differs from the 

 species Eirina labiata, E. honnda and E. ramosa. 



But for reasons Avhich I hâve fuUy set forth in my paper on the genus 

 Errina I bave come to the conclusion , in agreement with von Marenzeller, 

 that Labiopora must be merged Avilh Errian, and I bave arranged the 

 species into three groups : the Errina group, the Labiopora group and the 

 Spinipora group. 



Errina Dabneyi clearly belongs to the Labiopora group , not to the Er- 

 rina group of species , but it diiïers from some of the species included in 

 that group in the absence of the second (unguarded) type of dactylopore. 



In referring the spécimens in the Paris Muséum to the species E. Dab- 

 neyi there are two possible sources of error. I bave not been able to com- 

 pare the spécimens with the type spécimens in the Harvard Muséum and 



