A CARBONIFEROUS FAUNA FROM NOWAJA SEMLJA. 149 



Genus Aulophyllum M. Ed. and H. 



The characters relied upon by Duncan and Thomson in separating their genus 

 Cyclophyllum from the older genus Aulophyllum certainly do not seem of generic value, 

 and, in the writer's opinion, Cyclophyllum should be discarded. 



Aulophyllum aff. moseleyianum Thorn. 



The single specimen found of this genus was unfortunately broken off through the 

 floor of the calyx, and as the lower part of the coral is missing, specific determination is 

 impossible. The broken fragment, however, is identical in every way with the 

 transverse section of A. moseleyianum figured by Thomson,* except that the vesicles 

 of the central area seem somewhat larger than in Thomson's species. 



Genus Campophyllum M. Ed. and H. 



MM. Milne Edwards and Haime selected as the type of their genus Campophyllum 

 a coral identified by them with the Cyathophyllum jiexuosum of Goldfuss; but according 

 to ScHLUTERt this identification is erroneous, and their figured specimens (Polypes 

 Fossiles, pi. viii. figs. 4 and 4a) belong to a new species. Such a conclusion, however, 

 does not affect the validity of the genus. 



A recent examination of the genotype, for which I am indebted to the courtesy of 

 the authorities at the Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, at Paris, and to M. Gravier in 

 particular, shows that the original figures are of a very faithful nature. There is little 

 to add to the description given in the Polypes Fossiles. It may be mentioned, how- 

 ever, that a thin section cut from one of the figured specimens (fig. 4a) showed that at 

 an early stage of growth the septa are amplexoid and dissepiments are developed ; the 

 septa are without carinee, and the cardinal fossnla is barely discernible. 



The genus is intermediate in character between Cyathophyllum and Caninia, to 

 both of which it is closely allied. In their mature growth-stages, indeed, it is impossible 

 to distinguish Caninia from Campophyllum ; it has been held that the depth of the 

 cardinal fossula is greater in the former genus, but this factor is so variable that little 

 reliance can be placed on it. The greatest difference between these two genera is shown 

 in the young growth-stages. At this period, in Caninia, the septa reach to the centre 

 of the corallum, and dissepiments have not yet appeared ; whereas in a Campophyllum, 

 from a very early stage onwards, the septa are short and amplexoid, and dissepiments 

 apparent. In Cyathophyllum dissepiments also appear at an early stage, but the septa 

 reach to the centre of the corallum throughout. 



These distinctions are not, perhaps, of a very striking character, and it may 



* James Thomson, "A New Family of Rugose Corals," Proc. Phil. Soc. Glasg., 1882, p. 33, pi. iii. fig. 12. 

 t "Anthoz. d. Rhein. Mittel Devon," Abhand. Geol. Specialkarte v. Preussen, Bd. viii., Heft 4, p. 42 (1889). 



