KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND. 32. N:0 I. 99 



figs. 9 — 10. To judge by the figure it is no Heliolitidean at all, rather more related to 

 Calapoecia. Astrn?opora antiqua M'Coy, Ann. Mag. N. H., 2'' Ser., t. 3, p. 133, is by 

 E. & H. considered as identical. 



NiCHOLSON has in his »Tabulate Corals» and jointly ^v-ith Etheridge jr. in the 

 »Fossils of Girvan» described some ne^v forms of Propora of which I have identified a 

 few with ours. Their Pr. Edwardsi, Girvan, p. 270, pl. xvii, tig. 3, seems to be a new 

 and independant species and their Pr. tubulata, which differs from that of Lonsdale, 

 probably identic therewith. 



I have on plate ix, tigs. 36 — 39 represented a specimen of Pinacopora Grayi Nich. 

 & Ether. being found by Dr J. G. Hinde at the Junction Cliff of Anticosti and by him 

 presented to the Swedish State Museum. Evidently this specimen, as well as those figured 

 by the said authors, has not preserved its original conformation, but has become oblique 

 and deformed by pressure. If it were perraitted to judge by such an incomplete specimen 

 there would be no reason for maintaining the genus Pinacopora as there is so very little 

 to distinguish it from Propora. I would prefer at present to let it stånd as a synonym 

 to Propora. 



From the morainic accumulations of Öjle myr, Gotland (p. 71 above) Dr Wiman 

 has sent me some small complete specimens of a Propora, which possibly are identical 

 with the Pinacoporae. They form small, nummuloid disks of a thickness of 3 millimeters, 

 tlat on both sides. The circular or soraetimes oblong calicles raeasure nearly 3 millimeters 

 in diameter, have a thin, exsert mai^gin, angularly indented in twelve septalike folds, no 

 spines, flat tabulaä. The calicles are deeper than usual. The coenenchyma seems to be 

 entirely vesicular. 



Camptolithus n. gen. 



(KajXTJTÖ;, curved, arched.) 

 1851. Lyellia E. & H. p. p. Pol. palseoz., p. 150. 



The species on which I have founded this new genus was till now placed in the 

 genus Lyellia, but I will try to deraonstrate that it is quite incongruent with the typical 

 species, of which Milne Edwards and Haime construed their genus. If we turn to the 

 synoptical table at page 72 we shall in reality find that there is indeed very little, if 

 anything, to distinguish Lyellia from Propora. If we take the coordinate characters one 

 by one, we see that apparently the only dissimilarity consists in the »murailles épaisses 

 et costulées». But if we take »costulées» and compare with the »cloisons» which in Propora 

 constitute »cotes», both characters coincide. And in a corroded specimen of Propora the 

 calicular tubes appear quite as much »costulées» as those of a Lyellia. The circumstance 

 that in the American specimens of Lyellia the calicles are thus laid bare and only a few 

 shreds of the coenenchyma left, seems to have induced some authors, as Neumayr ^ to 



* Thierstämme I, p. 312. 



