I 

 ^ CLASSIFICATORY POSITION OP SOME MADEEPOEAEIA. 119 



which was figured in my Monograph of the Liassic Corals (" Corals 

 from the zone of Ammonites anfjulatus,'' p. 68, Pal. Soc. 1868). 

 I there noticed a cast of a raultiseptate discoidal coral of the genus 

 Montlivaltia, which was found at Punt Hill, Warwickshire, and 

 I helieved it to belong either to M. Ilaimei, Ch. & Dew., or to 

 one of the varieties which I had previously described and drawn. 

 jS'ow Mr. Tomes states (p. 181), "After a careful examination 

 of a great many specimens, I have arrived at the conclusion 

 that it is quite distinct from that species, and I describe it thus." 

 The description of a form, which has already been stated to be well 

 characterized, is then given. But are the better-preserved specimens, 

 of which Mr. Tomes has examined so many, the same as the type I 

 figured ? On looking at the drawing in my Monograph no one can 

 doubt the similarity of the cast which it represents to one of 

 M. Haimei ; and even the spiny ornamentation and septal number 

 are identical. On the other hand, when the form named M. rJicHica, 

 Tomes, is studied, from the description of its author, it appears that 

 in a cast it could not present the appearances which the form I 

 have drawn certainly does. In 31. rhcetica the primary septa are 

 strongly developed, and meet and unite in the centre. K'o such 

 large septa are in the cast, and the septa do not unite in the centre. 

 There are four cycles in the M. rhcetica, and the fifth is merely rudi- 

 mentary, according to its describer ; but in the cast the fifth cycle 

 must have been as well developed as it is sometimes in M. Haimei. 

 It is evident, then, that Mr. Tomes's coral is not of the same species 

 as the cast figured, and placed as M. Haimei. 



Montlivaltia foliacea, Tomes, ojy. cit. p. 191. 



There are portions of the description oi this species (which is so 

 badly drawn that nothing can be comprehended about the septal 

 number) that are clear, and enable it to be readily identified. 

 But there is evidently an error made regarding the septa. In the 

 description it is stated, " There are nine cycles and six systems." 

 Then the nature of each cycle is given, and it is stated that " the 

 ninth cycle has septa which are one fourth of the length of the 

 primary ones." The diameter of this coral was one inch. There is 

 no instance of a coral having nine cycles, and such a number is not 

 even found in the largest modern Fungice, some of which are six 

 inches across. Now nine cycles of septa will number in the six 

 systems no less than 1536 septa, or in one system 256 septa ! 



It is perfectly incomprehensible how this error can have been 

 made ; but it is not an isolated instance of the misapprehension of 

 the cyclical arrangement of Montlivaltia'. 



Mr. Tomes does not give a figure of his new species, M. excavata 

 (op. cit. p. 192), and yet it has a septal anomaly. It is said to have 

 five cycles, and that the fourth and fifth cycles are rudimentary. 

 This has not occurred in any described species previously ; and it is 

 invariable that when the fourth and fifth cycles are found, the fifth 

 may be rudimentary, but never both. Again, in the drawing of 

 M.impyracea (Tomes, op. cit. pi. ix. fig. 9) there are only four cycles, 



