116 PEOr. p. M. DTJNCAN ON THE STEIJCTUEE AND 



Mr. Tomes {op. cit. p. 364) omits to mention that T. rugosa, 

 Lanbe, was first recognized by me as a British fossil and: described 

 and drawn in the ' Monograph on the Possil Corals ' from the zone 

 of Ammonites angulatus (Pal. Soc. 1867, p. 13). The figures in the 

 Monograph show the characters of the species, but no additional 

 knowledge is given in the memoir under review, and, in fact, the 

 illustration in the Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xl. pi. xix. fig. 1, 

 might serve for several species. There is nothing distinctive about 

 it, except the stunted form to which attention was drawn nearly 

 twenty years since. 



Thecosmilia Hoeneri, Laube. 



This is recognized in the essay under consideration from a cast, 

 and a drawing is given of it (pi. xix. fig. 8). It is compared 

 with some forms described in the "Monograph of the Corals," 

 zone of A7nm. angulatus (Pal. Soc. 1868, pp. 67, 68, figs. 3 and 

 6), and they are said to be unfavourable examples of casts of the 

 same species. But whilst the figure 6 difi'ers totally from that given 

 by Mr. Tomes, figure 3 illustrates what is very evidently a cast of a 

 young coral which cannot possibly be named. The evidence of the 

 occurrence of T. Horneri, Laube, in the British fauna is insufficient. 



Thecosmilia coneluens, Laube. 



It is perfectly well shown by Mr. Tomes (op. cit. pi. xix. fig. 7) 

 that the fragment upon which this species was attempted to be 

 placed in the White Lias of England, is not a portion of a Theco- 

 smilian. 



Thecosmilia mieabilis, Dune. 



It is distinctly stated (Pal. Soc. 1867, Monogr. Brit. Poss. Corals, 

 pt. iv. p. 12) that the corallites do not increase by fissiparity, and 

 the figure (pi. ii. fig. 10) proves that gemmation occurs. 



Thecosmilia seeialis, nobis. 



This well-marked species was well drawn by De Wilde in my 

 Monograph. The coral was mistaken by Mr. Tomes for a species 

 of Elysastrcea, and subsequently acknowledged by him to belong to 

 the species under which I had placed it. 



Subgenus Cladophtllia, Ed. & H. 



MM. Milne-Edwards and Eaime notice that this group is not very 

 sharply defined from that called TJiecosmilia, Ed. & H. In the "Ke- 

 vision of the Genera " the species formerly admitted into it are placed 

 in Thecosmilia, in the subgenus CladopJiyllia. One of the characters 

 of the old genus was that the calicos are deep (Hist. Kat. des Corall. 

 vii. p. 363), yet some shallow-caliced forms found by Mr. Tomes are 

 placed by him in it. This cannot be correct, and the form he 

 alludes to on p. 367 as C. sublcevis, Laube, is undefinable. 



Genus Elysaste^a, Laube. 



Two species of this genus were determined by me to occur in the 



