﻿286 



DK. STANLEY SMITII OK AVLINA ROTIFOBMIS, [vol. lxxii, 



'A. hennahii Lonsdale' fig. 3 (excluding fig. Set 1 ) as the type of 

 a new genus — Smithia. Phillipsastreea, they stated, possessed a 

 columella, and Smithia did not. 



While acknowledgment is due to the service rendered by these 

 authors in separating the Devonian and Carboniferous forms, the 

 legitimacy of their use of the name Phillipsastrea must be 

 challenged : because, although the figure of the Carboniferous 

 species was quoted by d'Orbigny, he clearly intended the name 

 PJiillipsastrcea to be applied to the Devonian species, since he 

 framed his definition of the genus upon the figures and descriptions 

 of those corals. It is quite certain that, in quoting fig. 15 i>, he 

 did so under the impression that the species was identical with that 

 represented by figs. 16 G b & c. It is also true that he mentions 

 the presence of a columella as one of the generic characters of 

 Pliillipsastrcea ; but, here again, he was misled by the figures 

 that he quoted, and interpreted as a coral structure the interstitial 

 calcite which filled the intrathecal region and stood out from 

 the weathered surface as a boss. The name Phillipsastrea must, 

 therefore, be retained for the Devonian genus, and a new one 

 given to the Carboniferous species. The actual genotype of 

 Phillipsastrcea is the species to which Phillips's specimen be- 

 longed, but there is nothing in the figures to warrant the 

 assumption that it was not specifically identical with the type- 

 specimen of Astrcea Jiennahi — it may, or may not, have been. In 

 either case the two specimens belong to the same genus, and, 

 even supposing that they represented different species, Phillips's 

 specimen is lost, and we are at liberty to close a neogenotype — 

 besides, in so doing, we rectify an anomahy. 



Edwards & Haime also described under the name Acervulctria 2 

 ('Polypiers Fossiles' 1851, pp. 416, 421, and 'British Fossil Corals' 

 1853, pp. 236—11) certain species of Devonian corals, which differed 

 from Pliillipsastrcea {Smithia of these authors) only in the 

 presence of a thin but distinct epitheca. 



/ I agree with Freeh in regarding the two as congeneric — in fact, 

 /careful examination of material shows that certain species of the 

 one are identical with certain ' species ' of the other, and that 

 the development (or, rather, loss) of the epitheca is one of degree 

 only. Indeed, in a single corallum, epitheca may be present in 

 one region and absent in another. 



Frederick McCoy (1851), 'British Pakeozoic Fossils' p. 72, 



1 They founded upon this figure a new species, Smithia pengellyi, and 

 thereby definitely fixed for us the type of A. hennahi. 



2 The genus Acervularia was founded by Schweigger, ' Handbuch der 

 Naturgeschichte ' &c., 1820, p. 418, upon the figure and description of a 

 Silurian coral from Gothland by Henry Pougt, ' Corallia Baltica ' in ' Arnceni- 

 tates Academics ' pp. 92-93, pi. iv, fig. ix and No. 2. Fig. ix bears a strong 

 superficial resemblance to weathered specimens of the so-called Devonian 

 Acervularia, but it is not at all likely that these are congeneric with the 

 coral figured by Fougt. No. 2 (also fig. viii, referred to as a variety of the 

 same ' madrepora composita ') undoubtedly represents Acervularia luxurians. 



