264 BRITISH FOSSIL CORALS. 



This small ramose coral appears to be intermediate between true Alveolites and Ccenites ; 

 it resembles the latter by the great development of its ccenenchyma, and Alveolites by the 

 almost circular form of the calices, but differs from both by the direction and the mode of 

 arrangement of the corallites, which, instead of being oblique, are almost perpendicular to 

 the axis of the branches, and form vertical series somewhat as in the genus Seriatopora. 

 When this fossil becomes more completely known in its structural characters, it will 

 probably form the type of a new generical division. Mr. Hall places it in his genus 

 Cladopora, which is partly composed of Bryozoa. 



Diameter of the branches about one and a quarter line ; diameter of the calices about 

 one fifth of a line. 



Dudley. Mr. Hall mentions its existence in the lower part of the Niagara limestone 

 at Lockport. 



Collections of Mr. Fletcher and of the Parisian Museum. 



3. Genus Monticulipora. 1 



1. Monticulipora petropolitana. 



Favosites petropolitanus, Pander, Russ. Reiche, p. 105, tab. i, figs. 6, 7, 10, 11 (excl., 



fig. 8), 1830. 

 Calamopora fibrosa (pars), Goldfuss, Petref. Germ., vol. i, p. 215, tab. lxiv, fig. 9,"l833. 

 Favosites hemisphericus, St. Kutorya, Zweit. Beitr. zur Geogn. und Paleont. Dorp., 



p. 40, tab. viii, fig. 5, and tab. ix, fig. 3, 1837. 

 Calamopora fibrosa, Eichwald, Sil. Syst. in Esthl., p. 197, 1840. 



Favosites lycopodites, Lardner Vanuxem, Geol. of New York, 3d part, p. 46, fig. 3, 1842. 

 — — Will. Mather, Geol. of New York, 1st part, p. 397, fig. 3, 1843. 



Ch.^tetes petropolitanus, Lonsdale, in Murch., Vern. and Keys., Russ. and Ural, vol. i, 



p. 596, tab. a, fig. 10, 1845. 

 — — Keyserling, Reise in Petsch., p. 180, 1846. 



Favosites petropolitana, M'Coy, Syn. of the Silur. Foss. of Irel., p. 64, pi. iv, fig. 21, 



1846. 



] D'Orbigny, Prodr. de Paleont., vol. i, p. 25, 1850; Nebulipora, M'Coy, Ann. and Mag. of Nat. 

 Hist., 2d series, vol. vi, p. 283, 1850; and Brit. Palseoz. Fossils, p. 22, 1851. 



This generical division was proposed by M. D'Orbigny, since the publication of the Classification of 

 Polypi, given in the introduction to this work, and the great resemblance which exists between the corals 

 included in this new group and the common Chceteles induced us to reject it; in our Monographie des 

 Polypiers Fossiles des Terrains Palaozoiques, we therefore included all these fossils in the old genus 

 Chaetetes of Fischer. But since that we have observed some specimens in which the fissiparous mode of 

 reproduction, attributed by Fischer to his original Chsetetes, is quite distinct ; whereas, in the species to 

 which M. D'Orbigny gives the name of Monticulipora, thegemmiparous reproduction is evident. We there- 

 fore now think it advisable to admit the generical distinction established by that palaeontologist. Besides the 



