570 
ME.  E.  F.  TOMES  ON  THE  AFFINITIES 
[Nov.  1893, 
same  date,  the  following  paragraph,  which  is  so  contradictory,  should 
appear: — “When  the  corallites  are  not  crowded  together,  the  calices 
are  circular,  and  have  a  distinct  though  not  prominent  edge  ;  they 
are  also  separated  by  a  pseudo-coenenchyma,  the  surface  of  which 
is  covered  with  small  costal  ridges,  that  are  usually  denticulated 
so  as  to  assume  the  appearance  of  rows  of  round,  obtuse  granulse. 
When  the  calices  approximate,  they  become  somewhat  polygonal, 
and  their  margins  are  separated  only  by  a  narrow  furrow,  or  united 
so  as  to  appear  simple.*’  A  further  definition  is  given  by  the  same 
authorities  in  1851,  of  which  I  need  only  observe  that  the  walls 
are  described  as  being  thick  and  directly  soldered  together.1 
The  ‘  Histoire  Naturelle  des  Corallaires’  (Paris,  1857)  of  the  same 
authors  adds  nothing  to  our  knowledge  of  the  genus,  the  corallites 
being  described  as  prismatic,  soldered  together  by  their  walls, 
which  are  thick  and  simple ;  but  the  somewhat  contradictory 
remarks  respecting  Astrocoenia  pulchella  are  repeated. 
Dr.  E.  de  Eromentel,  in  his  ‘  Introduction  a  l’Etude  des  Polypiers 
Fossiles,’  dated  1858-1861,  defines  the  genus  in  the  following 
words  : — “  Polypier  massif  compose  d’individus  soudes  directement 
par  les  murailles,  qui  sont  prismatiques ;  calices  polygon aux  ” 
(p.  232). 
In  1854  appeared  the  fine  work  by  Peuss  on  the  Anthozoa  of 
the  Cretaceous  deposits  of  the  Eastern  Alps,"  in  which  are  beautiful 
figures  of  the  Aslrocoenice  from  the  well-known  locality  of  Gosau. 
In  that  work  the  talented  author  made  known  what  had  not  before 
been  noticed — namely,  that  there  are  denticulations  in  the  edges  of 
the  septa. 
The  late  Prof.  Duncan,  in  his  ‘  Monograph  of  the  British  Fossil 
Corals,  Second  Series,’  Palaeont.  Soc.  1872  (part  iv.  No.  1,  p.  24), 
after  accepting  the  description  of  the  genus  by  MM.  Milne-Edwards 
and  Haime,  with  the  modification  made  by  Peuss,  follows  the  former 
authors  in  their  remarks  on  Astrocoenia  pulchella ,  but  states  that 
the  coenenchyma  between  the  corallites  in  that  species  arises  “  from 
an  hypertrophied  condition  of  the  adjacent  corallite-walls.”  This 
is  followed  by  some  statements  relating  to  the  nature  of  the  gemma¬ 
tion  in  Astrocoenia ;  but  it  is  perhaps  necessary  to  observe  that  this 
immediately  precedes  the  description  of  the  supposed  Astrocoenice 
from  the  deposits  at  the  bottom  of  the  Lias  in  South  Wales,  twelve 
in  number,  in  every  one  of  which  the  coenenchyma  is  either  definitely 
stated  to  exist,  or  its  presence  alluded  to. 
There  is  a  further  description  of  the  genus  by  the  same  author  in 
his  4  Revision  of  the  Families  and  Genera  of  the  Sclerodermic  Zoan- 
tharia,’  Journ.  Linn.  Soc.  vol.  xviii.  (1884),  which,  as  it  does  not 
appear  in  immediate  connexion  with  doubtful  forms,  deserves  a  fuller 
mention,  and  is  as  follows  : — “  Colony  variable  in  shape,  massive, 
gibbous,  lamellar,  dendroid  or  discoid,  compact,  sometimes  encrust¬ 
ing.  Corallites  prismatic  or  cylindrical,  uniting  by  their  walls,  which 
1  ‘  Monogr.  des  Polyp.  Foss.  Terr.  Paleoz.’  Arch.  Mus.  Hist.  Nat.  Paris, 
vol.  v.  p.  64. 
2  ‘  Beitr.  zur  Charakt.  der  Ereid.  i.  d.  Ostalpen,’  Denkschr.  kais.  Akad. 
Wissensch.  Wien,  vol.  Tii.  p.  73. 
