8 
should, I think, remain where Brüggemann placed it. I observe, 
however, that its calice is not invariably circular, but sometimes 
elliptical. 
Homophyllia australis, Milne Edwards and Haime, sp. 
PULSER 
Caryophyllia australis, Milne Edwards and Haime, Ann. Sci. Nat., 
Ser. 3, WOOL Vol. X., p. 320, PL viii., ig. 2. 
Homophyllia australis, Brüggemann, Ann. Nat. Hist., Vol. xx., p. 310. 
Homophyllia australis, Tenison Woods, Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. 11., 
pp. 321, 322. 
Oylicia magna, Tenison Woods, Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. 11., pp. 325-6, 
E 
Homophyllia (Isophyllia) australis, Quelch, “Challenger” Rep., 
Zool., Vol. XVI. p. 22. 
In connection with this synonymy the following remarks by 
Dr. Brüggemann are quoted :—* Milne Edwards has mistaken 
this coral for the young of a West Indian Zsophyllia ; the des- 
cription of Isophyllia australis (Hist. Nat. Cor., Vol. 11., p. 375) 
has nothing to do with the species under consideration." 
There are eight well grown examples of H. australis in 
the South Australian gatherings and others have been dredged 
in Port Phillip Bay. A worn specimen was also picked up by 
Mr. Theile on a raised beach at Altona. All are solitary and 
have always been so. Dr. Brüggemann speaks of neighboring 
specimens touching each other and becoming intimately united by 
their sides, but I have never observed such union. Possibly they 
may sometimes be found on the same piece of rock, but with one 
exception all those I have seen are independent specimens. Small 
pieces of bivalve shells, polyzoa, serpulae, etc., are in adult forms 
still adherent to the base, which is usually much smaller than the 
calice. A very young example is almost immersed in a polyzoan 
fragment. The exception just mentioned refers to a young 
individual which is fixed by its base to the side of the large and 
perfect specimen figured, but the attachment is merely accidental. 
Specimens of this coral from St. Vincent Gulf were forwarded 
many years ago to the late Tenison Woods for identification, but 
he did not recognise its identity with Edwards and Haime's 
species, and redescribed it as new under the name of Cylicia 
magna. In the article containing this description he had already 
quoted in detail Brüggemann's account of H. australis, but, as he 
makes no reference to the figure given by Edwards and Haime, 
T presume he had not consulted it. That Woods was uncertain as 
to the generic position assigned to his species is evident from his 
concluding remarks. He says, for instance, that Professor Tate, 
from whom he received the specimens, has not recorded anything 
of the stolon or mode of increase. "There is of course no stolon, 
the coral being, as Dr. Brüggemann observed, solitary at all ages. 
