CLASSIPICATORT POSITION OF SOME MADREPORAKIA. 127 



or, rather, Adelastrcea, is wanting, and the continuous and well- 

 developed costae are not seen. 



It is clear that the corallites have walls, and that the bundle of 

 short stick-like growth is totally different from the structure of Adel- 

 astrcea. The generic position of this particular species is most 

 probabty in the subgenus Cladopliyllia^ and near a form described and 

 figured by me in the "Monograph of the Fossil Corals," Pal. Soc. 

 1872, pi. iii. figs. 1—1, p. 3. It is not that form, but the generic 

 attributes are the same. Finally, ]Mr. Tomes acknowledges that he is 

 not even sure about the form he sep^irated from Isastrcea being a 

 Confusastraean ; he says, " I have placed this curious species in the 

 genus Confusastrcea with considerable doubt '' (p. 424). The form 

 cannot remain in the genus in which Mr. Tomes placed it. 



There is a curious employment of a term in reference to this 

 species which is explanatory, to a certain extent, of an incomprehen- 

 sible criticism of a figure I gave of Tlmmnastrcea Wcdtoni, Ed. & H., 

 Pal. Soc. 1872, lirit. Foss. Corals, pt. iii. pi. ii. figs. 6 A; 9. 



Mr, Tomes states that the septa ''all are evenly and delicately, 

 but very distinctly geniculated." Geniculation is a term which 

 refers to the horizontal knee-like bondings of the septo-costse of 

 species of such a genus as Thamnastnea ; but there is nothing of 

 the kind in Isastrcea tenuistriata. Mr. Tomes seems to make the 

 word equivalent to granulation, crenulation, or minute spinulation 

 of the free margins of septa (see p. ^ 34). 



Although it has been necessary for me to place myself in such 

 very definite antagonism with the author of the " Madreporaria of 

 the Inferior Oolite," it is pleasing to have to recognize the author's 

 careful work in some instances. In one matter it appears that we 

 were both in error, and a species placed in the genus Cydolites by 

 myseK, and in Dimoiyhastroia by Mr. Tomes, turns out, after his 

 careful use of the graver, to be a form of Dhnorpharcea of M. de 

 Fromentel. The synonymy of Dimorpharcea I have noticed in the 

 " Revision of the Genera," p. 170. 



Mr. Tomes has worked off the matrix, and has exposed the central 

 calico and a well-marked row of surrounding calicos which were not 

 visible previously. Cydolites Lycetti, nobis, becomes, therefore, Di- 

 morpharcea Lycetti, Dune, sp., and Dimorphastrcea duhia, Tomes, is 

 absorbed. This is to be regretted, because, in the description of the 

 species, Mr. Tomes, having better specimens, was much nearer the 

 truth than I was. 



Genus Chorisastrjea, E. de Fromentel. 



The late A. E. von Heuss did not see the propriety of recognizing 

 this genus, nor did Milne-Edwards and Jules Haime. 



The genus Chorisastrcea was founded in error, as Pratz has proved^, 

 and it was intended to .break up the genus Latimcmndra as diagnosed 

 by Milne-Edwards and J. Haime. These naturalists had carefully 

 studied the forms which, before the time of their great work, had 

 been associated with no less than five genera by d'Orbigny, and, in 



* Palaeontographica, 1882, p. 109, note. See also *' Eevision of the Genera," 

 p. 127. 



