On the Genus Monticulipora. 



27 



of what I have heretofore called M. dalei, and which is now referred to 

 M. ramosa. The latter species abounds on the tops of the hills at 

 Mount Auburn and Corry ville, and other places in the city, at an eleva- 

 tion of 350 to 425 fecit, where the former is never found. It may be 

 that, between these two ranges, the two species will be found in the 

 same strata, but, at present, I do not recall to mind any instance of 

 finding the two species associated on the same slab. There are no two 

 species in the genus that seem to be more easily distinguished than 

 these. The approximates (dalei now) is found in clusters as large or 

 larger than the dalei (ramosa now), but the branches are much smaller, 

 bifurcate at different angles, the monticules are not half as large, nor 

 half as numerous, nor are the interstitial tubuli half so abundant. And 

 if it be true that microscopic sections show no distinguishing differ- 

 ences, we may hesitate before accepting species founded alone upon 

 tangential and longitudinal sections, and with still stronger reason 

 doubt the validity of subgenera established in this manner. 



Chetetes pulchellus of the Ohio Palaeontology, he now describes as a 

 new species under the name of Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) andrewsi. 

 No one in this country had ever thought of referring this form to the 

 Monticulipora pulchella of Edwards and Haime until Prof. Nicholson 

 had so described it in the Ohio Paleontology. And, in 1875, immedi- 

 ately after his identification was in print, I said, "I do not think that 

 pulchella is found here at all. Edwards and Haime had before them 

 many corals from this locality, and as the coral now referred by Prof 

 Nicholson to their species is the most abundant coral in our rocks, it 

 would seem highly probable that the}^ were in possession of it, when 

 they wrote their work on the British corals, in which they frequently 

 referred to localities in America, yet when making the species pulchella, 

 the only locality mentioned was England. They described pulchella 

 as follows : ' Corallum ramose ; its branches often somewhat com- 

 pressed, and from two to four lines in diameter. Tubercles, broad, not 

 veiy prominent, and somewhat stellated. Calices rather regularly 

 hexagonal, and veiy unequal in size ; those that occupy the center of 

 the tubercles about one fifth of a line in diameter, and at least twice 

 as large as those placed in the intervals between the groups thus 

 formed.' Our species is usually much larger than this one, and it is 

 very rare to find the branches compressed ; the prominences or 

 tubercles are not stellated; the calices are not regularly hexagonal, 

 though as they are crowded together some of them may be hexagonal, 

 while others are pentagonal or heptagonal or approaching a circle, there 



♦ 



