THE BORING AT RICHMOND, SURREY. 791 
There is a difference between the two forms; and J am glad that 
they are kept distinct, 
8. ENTALOPHORA STRAMINEA, Phillips. 
Millepora straminea, Phill. Geol. of Yorksh. (ed. 1829), p. 149, 
pl. ix. fig. 1. 
Spiropora straminea, Haime, op. cit. pl. ix. fig. 6. 
Entalophora straminea, Brauns, Bry. mittl. Jur. Metz. 
Spiropora straminea, Vine, Brit. Assoc. Rep. 1882, p. 12 of 
Rep. 
Phillips gives the horizon of his species as “ Bath Oolite,” and 
quotes several localities in which it is found. 
As the individual specimens that I placed under the above name 
are the most abundant of the Jurassic forms from Richmond, and 
as there seems to be great confusion among authors respecting 
Phillips’s type-species, I think it far wiser to separate and limit 
the various forms. And I do this for two reasons:—1l. In my 
notes on the specimens sent to me by Prof. Judd, and under the 
circumstances mentioned, I gave, after a careful examination, three 
names—4#. straminea, Phill., £. bajocensis, D’Orb., and LE. ceespitosa, 
Lamx. Judging by cell-character, all three of these species are 
present in the material obtained from Richmond; but the three 
cell-characters are as often on a single specimen as on several; and 
for this reason alone a confusion must always follow careful work, 
if the old names be persistently retained. 2. Then, again, my 
friend Mr. Walford identifies a Forest-Marble species with Spuropora 
eespitosa, Lamx. Now this Forest-Marble form is identical, or as 
nearly so as possible, with the Richmond forms, only much more 
bulky in zoarial growth. Then both F. straminea, Phill., and £. 
cespitosa, Lamx., are assigned to two horizons—Inferior and Great 
Oolite. 
Fig. 3.—Portion of the zoarium of Entalophora richmondiensis, 
showing the typical arrangement of the cells. Enlarged. 
a. Natural size. 
9. ENTALOPHORA RICHMONDIENSIS (n. sp.). Fig. 3.. 
Zoarvwm ramose, bifurcating, rarely, if ever, anastomosing ; 
342 
