1848.] LONSDALE ON FOSSIL ZOOPHYTES. 91 



the Ceriopora gracilis of Prof. Goldfuss*, regarded by the former 

 authority as the same coral. The English fossil consists of slender, 

 forked branches, very numerous and closely aggregated in the spe- 

 cimen examined (fig. 16). On one side the branches present large 

 circular apertures in general irregularly distributed, but sometimes 

 arranged transversely (fig. 17) ; and now and then, in consequence of 

 the occurrence of interrupted vertical lines, they appear to be dis- 

 posed in perpendicular rows (fig. 18). Between these large openings 

 are others much smaller, less regular in form and more numerous, 

 constituting a kind of reticulation ; the two series being easily di- 

 stinguished. On the opposite side of the branches the major aper- 

 tures are wholly wanting (fig. 19), care being taken to guard against 

 deceptive indentations produced by grains of sand ; and the entire 

 surface offers to view a fine network similar to that between the \is- 

 ceral openings of the direct front. The central portion of the coral 

 is composed of tubes which have a considerable downward range 

 (fig. 20), the round apertures being their surface-terminations ; and 

 beneath the general reticulation, which forms an investing layer, mi- 

 nute tubuli range horizontally inwards (fig. 22). 



Cricopora was proposed by M. de Blainville (Man. d'Actinol. 

 p. 420) as an amended designation for the Spirojwra of Lamouroux 

 (Exp. Me'thod. p. 47), the apertures of the visceral tubes being dis- 

 posed in circles around the branches, and not spirally : the genus has 

 moreover but one description of openings, independent of textile 

 pores f. The surface-characters alone therefore are sufficient to sepa- 

 rate the lower greensand fossil from Cr^icopora as established by M. 

 de Blainville ; and it is not necessary to notice species subsequently 

 added to it. The bifold nature of the apertures would suggest that 

 the extinct coral under examination might be an Heteropora ; but 

 the visceral tubes terminating only on one side of the branches, is 

 opposed, in the present state of knowledge, to a generic identification. 

 The portions traversed by longitudinal ribs (fig. 18) resemble strongly 

 a fossil referred doubtfully by M. Roemer;]; to Chrysaora of Lamou- 

 roux § . If rightly understood, figure 29 </ of the former authority ex- 

 hibits in the transverse section a quaquaversal radiation of abdominal 

 cavities ; and it is evidently a careful delineation. Should the infer- 

 ence be correct, it would be necessary to show, before a generic iden- 

 tity could be admitted between the two fossils, that in all other 

 essential particulars perfect agreement exists, and that the difference 

 is only specific. No doubt however can be entertained that the En- 

 glish extinct zoophyte is not a Chrysaora. 



The only genus known to the author of this notice which de- 

 mands a detailed comparison with the lower greensand production, is 



* Petrefacten, p. 35, pi. 10. fig. 1 1. 



t Consult Lamouroux, tab. 73. fig. 19-22, tab. 82. figs. 9, 10, 11, 12. 



+ Verst. Norddeutsch. Kreidegel)irges, p. 24, (Jhrxjs. yulchella, tab, 5. fig. 29, a, 

 b, c, d. 



§ Exposition Methodique, p. 83. Consult pi. 81. fig. 6, 7, and fig. 8, 9, for generic 

 external characters. 



