CLASSTFICATORT POSITION OF SOME MADEEPORARIA. 125 



which shows all the external characters of a piece of Donacos^nilia, 

 and which may belong to the genus, as suggested by j^Ir. Tomes. 

 (Pal. Soc. 1868, Corals from the Zone of A. Bucldandi, p. 53.) 



I disagree therefore with the statement of the identity of Axo- 

 smilia Wrightii and Montlivaltia Holli ; and I retain this fast as I 

 originally named it, placing it, for consistency's sake, in the sub- 

 genus OppeUsinilia. 



Until a fossil of the genus Epismilia is found perfect and free 

 from weathering and wearing of the slender tops of the septa, so long 

 will the genus not be recognized. M. de Promentel, in describing 

 the gejius, created it for Montlivcdtice with smooth septa and 

 elongate fossuloB. Therefore, a spiny-septate Montlivaltia which had 

 been worn became a new generic form. Milne-Edwards and Jules 

 Haime saw many of the forms which since the date of the Hist. 

 Nat. des Corall. have been included in the genus Epismilia ; but 

 their experience led them to place a proper vahie on the character 

 of the smooth septa. Elongate fossulse are not distinctive from Mont- 

 livaltia. Mr. Tomes introduces a form which he states, op. cit. p. 415, 

 was not in a sufficiently satisfactory state of preservation to admit of 

 description. He then states, "The edges of the septa have been 

 worn off." How, then, can this form be distinguished from a 

 Montlivaltia which had its septa worn and weathered on top and 

 at the sides ? There is not the slightest warrant for the intro- 

 duction of the genus into the fauna. 



Reuss altered the name Confusastrcea into Adelastroia, on account 

 of the barbarism of the first-mentioned generic appellation ; and Mr. 

 Tomes, in his essay on the Madreporaria of the Inferior Oolite, 

 althougli he retained the old name at first, properly utilized Reuss's 

 alteration subsequently. But it is not correct to state that " the 

 genus Adelastrcea, Reuss, from the Cretaceous beds of Gosau, is 

 founded upon a species of Co7ifusastrcea.'' The author of the essay 

 now under consideration, in common with many investigators, has 

 had great trouble with this genus. Milne-Edwards had only in- 

 different specimens to examine, and the same may be said in the 

 case of d'Orbigny. Nevertheless, certain definite generic attributes 

 were got at, and there is only a doubt about one structure. It is 

 quite certain that the corallite-walls are rudimentary in adult forms, 

 also that the calices are swollen in the costal part, so as to present 

 bourrelets separated from one another by polygonal grooves, and 

 that the costee are continuous. In the typical species there is no 

 columella, but Reuss has shown that a rudimentary one may exist. 



It appears to me that there may be rudimentary walls in young 

 parts of a colony. 



A form was called Clausastrcea consohrina, by Ed. and Haime, 

 but they put a note of interrogation after the generic name, and 

 this was added to the Crickley fauna by Mr. Tomes. He found, 

 however, that the form he thus named really belonged to the 

 genus Confusastrcea, and he then proceeded to show (on p. 422) 

 that it cannot possibly be associated with it. He states that the 

 species has distinct waUs and a pimple-shaped columella. The 



