KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEAIIENS HANDLINGAK. BAND 32. N:0 I. 49 



of this coral, which were sent to me from Mr Billings, as well as from Rominger together 

 with others and I can with certainty affirm the results both of Rominger and Nicholson.^ 

 My specimens of which I have given a couple of figures on plate ii, tigs. 23 — 26 distinctly 

 present the tabula» and the oscula of the theca^ which, however, are only visible in such 

 calicles that have not been completely silicified. On the other hand I never, even in the best 

 pi'eserved specimens, have been able to see »the cycle of twehe rows of horizontal squamae» 

 of which Rominger speaks and I cannot understand what he means. Moreover he talks 

 about »the radiated structure of the tubes». In the tirst description (1. c.) he writes about 

 »twelve distinct longitudinal ridges» in the larger tubes and also of longitudinal stria; in 

 the smaller tubes. Even if there are such, this does not militate against the Favosite- 

 nature. There is, moreover, nothing that could be interpreted as coenenchyma. There 

 are larger and smaller calicles, quite as in other palaäozoic, especially Silurian Favositida^. 

 I have, on plate ii fig. 28, given a figure of a Gotland Favosites, where the surface has 

 an appearance nearly alike that of Fav. canadensis. 



There are amongst the species of the genus Favosites two distinct groups, one with 

 angular, polygonal calicles, all of nearly equal size, the other with one set of large calicles 

 Avith circular aperture, surrounded by a great number of smaller, both polygonal and 

 circular calicles of unequal size, intervening as a sort of quasi-coenenchyma between the 

 large calicles. There are several transitions from such corals, A\here the larger, circular 

 calicles not are so prominent, to others where they are placed at regular intervals from 

 each other. Instances of this may be seen on the plates of Davis' Corals of Kentucky. 

 Even in Favos. canadensis this irregularity may be reraarked and it may be regarded as 

 an extreme developraent of the tendency seen in some Favositida? to have two sets of 

 calicles. In these there exists no coenenchyma, there is not the least homology with the 

 Heliolitidte and there is no reason with Neumayr to say that »offenbar in naher Beziehung 

 zu den Fistuliporen steht die im Silur und Devon verbreitete Familie der Heliolithiden».^ 

 This is quite in conformity with the views of Dana as expressed in Synopsis of the 

 Report on Zoophytes 1859 p. 104 where the Heliolitidas are enumerated in the subfamily 

 of the Helioporinas and Family of Favositida-. In spite of the clear evidence given by 

 Rominger and Nicholson Neumayr persisted in the view of the relation of F. cana- 

 densis with Heliolites and went so far as to say: »Wir haben in Fistulipora canadensis 

 ein klares Bindeglied zwischen Favositiden und Heliolithiden vor uns». Wentzel already 

 in 1895 criticized this view in his Mcmoir on the Tabulata (p. 23). Through some notion 

 of Neumayr's views probably an unpublished Museum name, Heliolitina canadensis, occurs 

 in American collections as a synonym to Favosites canadensis. The high authority which 

 Neumayr still after his decease deservedly enjoys amongst many of his followers for his 

 researches on the fossils of the mesozoic strata might contribute to perpetuate this evident 

 error and I shall in the following table try to give an idea of the fundamental differences 

 between the two groups named. 



1 Nicholson in »Tabulate Corals», p. 289, when speakiiig of Fistulipora canadensis represents me as 

 having in ray paper of 1876 stated that it belongs to the Bryozoa, but I do not there mention it at all. 



- Neumayr, Stämme des Thierreichs, p. 320, . . 



