188 
HETEROPOEID^. 
Affinities. 
The first difficulty with this species is due to the fact that 
Goldfuss gave four figures (pi. x. figs, ^a-d), and also identified 
with it a specimen which von Hagenow has used as the type 
of his Ceriopora schweiggeri. Von Hagenow has described and 
refigured Groldfuss’ specimens ; but, unfortunately, he transfers 
the species cryptopora to Ceriopora^ and renames the Reteropora. 
According to his determinations the five specimens of Goldfuss 
may be renamed as follows : — 
Goldfuss, pi. X. fig. Za = Ceriopora cryptopora^ Hag., pi. v. fig. 6, 
p. 53. 
33 = specimen apparently lost (Hag. p. 53); but 
according to von Hagenow it probably 
belongs to his R. crassa. 
8c = Reteropora tenera, Hag., p. 48 (? pi. v. 
fig. 14). 
8d = Reteropora crassa, Hag., p. 46. 
not figd. = Reteropora schweiggeri, Hag., pi. v. fig. 1. 
Fig. 49 . — Heteropora cryptopora. Vertical section ; x 10. D. 6366b. 
The difficulty in this arrangement is the inclusion of cryptopora, 
the type species of Reteropora, in Ceriopora. The evidence in 
support of this step seems very doubtful, for von Hagenow’ s 
figure of Goldfuss’ type-specimen (pi. v. fig. 6r) suggests that 
it is a Reteropora. It is true that von Hagenow says of his 
section (fig. 63) that it has “ mehrere Hundert gleich grosser, 
feiner Poren ” ; but his figure appears to indicate a small number 
of mesopores, and such basal sections as he figures often show 
hardly any mesopores. Von Hagenow remarks, moreover (p. 53), 
that “the pores vary a little in largeness,” adding, however, that 
