126 PEOP. p. M. DinSTCATf ON THE STETJCTUEE AND 



walls are not simply rudimentary in the young parts of the coral- 

 lum, and the columella differs from the rudimentary kind noticed 

 by Eeuss. 



Unfortunately, no figure is given of the species or of the sections. 

 Some other genus will therefore have to include this species, or 

 rather, a species which cannot rest either in the genus Clausastrcea 

 or in ConfusastrcEci and Adelastroea. 



ISASTE^A TENUISTEIATA, M'Coy, Sp. 



An attack is made on the value of one of the best-defined 

 species of the Oolite, and it is evident that the criticisms regard- 

 ing Isastrcea tenuistriata, M'Coy, sp., as elaborated by Ed. and 

 Haime, are due to Mr. Tomes having mistaken a different form for 

 the true species so well described in. the ' Monograph of the Pal. 

 Soc' (Ed. & H., Corals from the Inferior Oolite, p. 138, pi. xxx. 

 fig. 1, la). 



In the first instance, Mr. Tomes considered that some specimens 

 of corals which he obtained from Crickley, and which he himself 

 named Isastrcea tenuistriata, were really to be referred to another 

 genus. Then he decided that there was not such a thing as the 

 above-named species, and that errors had been made. Then he 

 .writes, in the essay' now before us, p. 423, " The supposition ex- 

 pressed by me that Isastra?a tenuistriata was not a true Isastrcea, 

 has had partial confirmation by the examination of a considerable 

 number of specimens, which show that two species have been con- 

 founded under that name." 



He adds : — " The original description by M'Coy, as well as that 

 afterwards given by Milne-Edwards and Haime, will apply to one 

 of these, which is a true Isastrcea.'^ " The other is a species of 

 Confusastrcear Mr. Tomes is aware that he alone is responsible 

 for associating specimens with Isastrcea tenuistriata which were 

 unknown to the previous authors, and which were not called 

 Isastrcea tenuistriata by them. There was no error or confounding 

 of species on the part of Milne-Edwards and Jules Haime, or of 

 M'Coy. 



Thus there is no confirmation whatever that this form is not a 

 true Isastrcea, and Mr. Tomes writes, p. 425, " But other specimens 

 have occurred which are undoubtedly referable to M'Coy's Astrcea 

 tenuistriata,^' that is Isastrcea tenuistriata of subsequent authors. 



The specimens which the author of the essay on the Madreporaria 

 of the Inferior Oolite took to be the forms described by M'Coy and 

 his successors were, he now states, of a different genus, Oon- 

 fusastrcea ! A figure is given of this Confusastroea tenuistriata 

 (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxviii. pi. xviii. fig. 11), and if it is 

 compared with the drawing of Isastrcea tenuistriata in the Mono- 

 graph of Milne-Edwards and Haime, it will be noticed that they are 

 totally unlike. There is no possibility of their being confounded. 



The figure and the description given by Mr. Tomes indicate more- 

 over that the form cannot possibly belong to the genus to which he has 

 assigned it. In the drawing the main character of Gonfusastrcea 



