202 DE. G. J. HiNDE o:n- septasth^a, d'orbigt^t (1849), 



utter worthlessness as a specific diagnosis, and there is no apparent 

 ground for the above assertion, that this probabl}- recent (non- 

 petrifiee) coral, of uncertain derivation, is the same as d'Orbigny's 

 type from the Miocene of Virginia. 



The second species, S. Forhesi, is here described for the first time 

 from specimens from Maryland ; the originals Tvere stated to be in 

 the collection of the Geological Survey at London*, and in the 

 Museum at Bonn. The description of this form is so similar to that 

 given of the mythical S. ramosa, that it is difficult to find wherein 

 the difi'erence consists, more especially as there are no figures of 

 either form. The distinction alleged is that in the last-named form 

 the septa of the first and second cycle are said to be equal, whereas 

 in S. Forhesi they are unequal in length. But in the same specimen 

 of >S'. Forhesi there are plenty of corallites in which both these 

 features are present, so that, as specific characters, they are worthless. 

 D'Orbigny's reference to Se^fastrcea in the ' Cours elementaire de 

 Paleontologie ' (1849), vol. i. 3rd part, p. 170, is nearly a verbatim 

 reproduction of the description given in the ' Xote sur les Poly- 

 piers ; ' but instead of one species, d'Orbigny follows Edwards and 

 Haime, and includes therein four species, one from the Etage Pari- 

 sien, and the others from the Etage Falunien, therefore all Tertiary 

 forms. 



Three j-ears later, in 1 852, d'Orbigny again refers to the genus 

 in the ' Prodrome de Paleontologie,' vol. iii. p. 146, and requotes his 

 original description, with the addition of the words " ensemble 

 dendroide." D'Orbigny again places his nominal species S. suh- 

 ramosa as the type of the genus, describing it as a " Belle espece 

 presque dendroide ;" and he places Se2^tastra>a Forhesi, E. & H.. as a 

 synonym of S. suhramosa. At the same time he regards >S^. ramosa^ 

 E. & H., as a distinct species. 



It is therefore evident that d'Orbigny claimed the S. Forhesi, 

 E. & H., as merely a synonym of his S. suhramosa ; and comparing 

 the descriptions of these two forms given by Edwards and Haime, 

 the claim appears to be well founded. But the further question 

 arises, whether, accepting the species as synonymous, d'Orbigny 

 could justly claim that it should bear the prior name. S. suhramosa, 

 seeing that this was not accompanied by either description or figure, 

 whereas the later name, S. Forhesi, has the specific definition 

 attached to it. It must be conceded that on this ground the name 

 given by d'Orbigny cannot be retained, and that whilst recognizing 

 the identity of S. suhramosa with >S'. Forhesi, this latter name must 

 stand as that of the type species of the genus Septastrcpa. Indepen- 

 dently of the propriety of this course, there is the further advantage 

 that the authenticated tyjoe specimen of ;S^. Forhesi is in the British 

 Museum, and from it the generic characters can be definitely 

 ascertained ; whereas I am informed by Dr. P. Eischer that the 

 original of d'Orbigny's S. suhramosa cannot now be found in the 

 collection of his fossils in the Museum d'Histoire !N"aturelle at Paris. 



* The specimen here referred to has since been handed over to the British 

 Natural History Museum, South Kensington. 



