Beecher — Ohservations on the Genus Romingeria. 3 



1887), figures a species of Romingeria which he identifies with 

 R. iimbellifera. Through the kindness of Professor R. T. 

 Jackson, the writer has been enabled to study the original 

 specimens in the Davis collection now in the Museum of Com- 

 parative Zoology, and they prove not to be typical of that 

 species but of the form previously mentioned as generally 

 referred to it. Davis also applies four new specific names in 

 connection with Romingeria. The original examples of three 

 of the species appear not to be congeneric, while the fourth is 

 a Romingeria. 



In a revision of the Canadian paleozoic corals, published by 

 Lambe in 1899,^ there is included under Romingeria the sin- 

 gle species R. umbellifera Billings, sp. A reexamination of 

 the type showed the presence of mural pores, together with 

 the convex tabulae. No septal spines were observed. 



To review briefly the history and synonymy of the genotype 

 of Romingei'ia^ it may be stated that in 1859 Billings described 

 the species Aulopora umhellifera. This was made the t}^e 

 of Quenstedtia by Rominger in 1876, who also considered A. 

 cornuta Billings as synonymous. On account of this generic 

 name having been used previously, Kicholson, in 1879, sub- 

 stituted Romingeria. His description was apparently founded 

 upon two species, R. umhellifera and R. sp., the latter being 

 the one illustrated by him. Davis (1887) figures a species of 

 Romingeria which he identifies with the type. It is here con- 

 sidered as distinct. Two other very clearly defined forms are 

 also added in the present paper, — R. Jachsoni, sp. nov., and 

 R. niinor^ sp. nov. 



Ohservations on Romingeria umhellifera. 

 Plates I-V. 



The specific characters of this type have been pretty fully 

 and accurately stated in the description by Billings and 

 Rominger, but as yet the illustrations published simply give 

 one or two umbels without much suggestion as to the appear- 

 ance of a large colony and without any details of internal 

 structure. 



The number of buds given off by the parent corallite at each 

 period of proliferation is stated by Mcholson and Rominger 

 to be from five to twelve, and one would be led to believe that 

 twelve was the maximum attained by few, while the common 

 number was somewhere between -^yq and twelve. 



hundred and thirty-nine, illustrating about a thousand different specimens. 

 One hundred and seventy species are given names and marked as new species. 

 They are without description of any sort. Seven new generic terms are pro- 

 posed without definition. They are supposed to be corals, though some of 

 them certainly are not (e. g. , Nicholsonia=HedereUa, a Bryozoan), and all of 

 them are probably synonyms of well-known genera (e. g., Antholites and 

 Procteria=Pleurodictyum). 



