MADREPORARIA OF THE BOULONNAIS. 705 
ScyPHOc@NIA EXCELSA, n. sp. Pl. XXXIT. figs. 8, 9. 
The corallum has an upright subramose form, consisting of a few 
thick and short branches springing from a common root. Hach 
ramus is formed by a bundle of corallites, which are the result of 
external gemmation, and are united and enclosed by a common wall. 
They have at intervals thick rounded swellings, and they terminate 
in three or four large circular and deep calices, which are on nearly 
the same level on the same branch. ‘This gives to each branch a 
more or less capitate form. 
The mural coste are of nearly uniform thickness, and differ in this 
respect from those of Scyphocenia staminifera, which are alternately 
large and small. They are most distinct at the edge of the calices, 
but are nowhere so much developed as those of S. staminifera, and 
their union with the septa is less distinctly cristiform. There is a 
little feebly developed epitheca. 
The calices are circular, very deep, and their margins are very 
prominent, but not very thin. 
The septa have much the same general disposition as those of 
S. staminfera, but they are much more regular, thinner throughout, 
and are not swollen in the middle. In appearance they closely re- 
semble those of Bathycenza Slatteri. The cycles are the same as in 
S. staminifera. 
Height of the corallum 1 inch 5 lines; diameter of the largest 
calice, 5 lines. 
A favourable fracture exposes some well-defined but distant 
tabule, closely resembling those of a coral from the Great Oolite of 
Stonesfield, which I have elsewhere figured*. Their presence, as 
well as the general similarity that exists between the general con- 
formation of the corallum of this species and the young examples 
of the Stonesfield coral, leaves but little doubt as to their natural 
affinities. 
One specimen only has been examined. It was taken from the 
Great Oolite of Hydrequent. 
Genus BatHycanta, Tomes. 
Although I have described this genus as one of the Eusmilina, I 
am now in some doubt as to its real affinities, the apparently allied 
forms here described obviously being possessed of true tabule. Pro- 
visionally, therefore, I leave it in its present place. 
BatHyc@nia Moneta, d’Orb., sp. 
Prionastreea moneta, d’Orb. Prodr. de Paléont. t. i. p. 322 (1850). 
Isastrea? moneta, M.-Edw. & Haime, Pol. Foss. Terr. Paléoz. 
p. 104 (1851). 
The comparison of specimens of Bathycema Slatteri with examples 
of the so-called Jsastrea moneta received from M. Rigaux, has 
convinced me that they are both referable to the same genus, 
though they are specifically distinct. Besides the perfectly hori- 
* See Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol, xxxix. pl. vil. fig, 4, 
