140 PEOF. P. M. DTJITCAN O'N THE STETJCTUKE AND 



Koilocoenia decipiens, Laube, sp. ; but it is not found in England. 

 Thecosmilia Martini and T. Miclielini of the European Hettaugian, 

 are found in the Infra-Lias of England. T. rugosa, Laube, was first 

 noticed in the " Memoir of the Corals of the Zone of Ammonites angu' 

 latus,^^ Pal, Soc. 1867, and the species was properly figured. T. 

 serialis, nob., is correctly named. T. Horneri, Laube, has not yet 

 been shown to belong to the British Infra-Lias, neither has T. con- 

 fluens, Laube. Cladopliyllia is a subgenus of Theocosmilia. Elysas- 

 trcea, Laube, has two weU-marked species in the Sutton Stone. Mont- 

 livdltia simplex has the shape of the calice not merely dependent on 

 pressure, but caused by normal growth. M. Wcdlice, nob., has no 

 evidence of " rejuvenescence," and the growth noticed is endothecal, 

 and would be termed by Lindstrom stereoplasm. M. polymorpTia, 

 Terquem et Piette, remains a member of the Infra- Lias fauna. 

 M. peduncidata, nob., is not a Cladopyllia, but a simple coral of the 

 genus to which it was first assigned. The geological position of 

 the Sutton Stone and associated deposits is, from the palseontological 

 evidence, above the Rhsetic Series. 



The cast of a Montlivaltia figured in the " Memoir on the Corals 

 of the Zone of A. angulatus," Pal. Soc. 1808, p. 68, does not coincide 

 with M. rhcetica, Tomes, but with the form with which it was asso- 

 ciated by me, namely M. Haimei. Montlivaltia foliacea, Tomes, has 

 not nine cycles of septa as stated by its describer. The septal 

 arrangement of M. eoccavata, Tomes, and M. papyracea, Tomes, is 

 doubtful. TJiamnastroea is not a perforate Coral, but a Fungid. 

 Synastrcea and Centrastrcea were not founded by M. de Eromentel; 

 the first originated with Milne-Edwards, and the second with d'Or- 

 bigny. Centrastrcea is not synonymous with Astroeomorpha^ as 

 proved by Eeuss and E. Pratz. Oroseris is not a perforate Coral ; 

 and Milne-Edwards and Jules Haime were quite correct in stating 

 that the genus " se rapproche beaucoup des Comoseris/' and it is 

 incorrect to state that one genus really bears only a faint resem- 

 blance to the other. Oroseris is a subgenus of Oomoseris, which, of 

 course, is not one of the Perforata. Microsolena, Lmx., is one of 

 the Eungida. 



CyatJiopJiyllia, E. de Erom., is subsequent in date to Antillia, 

 nob. ; and therefore C. oolitica, Tomes, is Antillia oolitica. Tomes, 

 sp. ; but, as I now place AntUlia as a subgenus of Circopliyllia, 

 Ed. and EL., the term should be Circopliyllia oolitica, Tomes, sp., 

 providing that the form is not one of the Eungidse, to which group 

 it has a close resemblance. 



What is termed the " rejuvenescence " of corals by some palaeo- 

 zoophytologists has been long recognized as irregularity of growth ; 

 and there should be no difficulty in distinguishing worn growth-rings 

 from calicular gemmation ; but this has been confounded with the 

 other condition. Oppelismilia, nob., is retained as a subgenus of 

 Montlivaltia. Aocosmilia Wrighti, Ed. & H., and Montlivaltia {Op- 

 pelismilia) Rolli, nob., are not identical ; they are both simple corals 

 and differ from the fasciculate and compound genus Bonacosmilia, 

 E. de Erom. Epismilia is a worthless genus. Clausastrcea conso^ 



