600 
APPENDIX A. (LONSDALE ON CORALS.) 
slightest trace of even an attenuated extension of the lamellae in the grooves. The centre of the dome 
was a uniform smooth surface, with only an impression of the apex of the axis. 
The superior surface of the diaphragms had, under all conditions, near its circumference, a series of 
radii of variable dimensions. In one case, which exhibited what was probably a portion of the upper side 
of an inner layer of the diaphragm, slightly raised lines were visible, agreeing in position with the fur- 
rows on the under surface of the dome, and the centre was smooth to a similar extent. The other half 
of the same diaphragm had a distinct coating independent of an incrustation, and was traversed by sharp 
ridges which ranged to the very centre. In other cases these ridges were developed into prominent 
lamellae, which converged boldly from the inner side of the wall and terminating centrally, formed a 
projecting boss or the axis. Some transverse sections exhibited an inner circle, in consequence of the 
removal of the middle of a diaphragm and the exposing of subjacent lamelke. 
Whether the intervals between two successive diaphragms were fully intersected by lamelise-plates was 
not satisfactorily ascertained, as in the majority of vertical sections, which exposed the interior of the 
stems, the structure had been very partially preserved. In one instance, however, a series of successive 
intervals so far retained their original characters as to lead to the inference, that the lamella-plates wholly 
intersected those chambers with the exception of a relatively large aperture near the apex. This inference 
would apparently accord with the previously noticed smooth or unfurrowed surface of the central portion 
of the under side of the diaphragm. 
The axis exhibited very variable characters, but these differences were also chiefly due to the degree of 
preservation either of it or of the surrounding lamina. Being essentially composed of a union of the latter 
(developed upwards to the under surface of the diaphragm), its distinctness or prominence, in a transverse 
section, depended on the fracture or the amount to which it had been separated by weathering from the 
environing plates. In some cases it displayed a conical boss, in others it was apparently wanting. In 
vertical sections it exhibited, where preserved, a compressed body ranging between the successive dia- 
phragms and surrounded by fractured edges of lamellae, sometimes almost inconspicuous, but sometimes 
extending outwards like the ornamental sculpturing of a pinnacle. It is inferred that the axis never 
penetrated the diaphragm, on account of the mode of production and the perfect dome-plate, before 
noticed, being only indented in the centre. 
Locality and Formation. — River Oceter, Government of Tula. Carboniferous limestone. 
Lithodendron fasciculatum, J. Phillips. 
Stems cylindrical, nearly smooth, often united laterally ; lamella simple, alternately broad and narrow ; central 
diaphragms highly inclined, curved ; axis spindle-shaped ; walls with an internal vesicular layer. 
Lithodendron fasciculatum, Phillips, Geol. Yorkshire, part ii. p. 202. plate 2. figs. 16, 17. 
Madrepora, Parkinson, Organic Remains, ii. p. 51. plate 6. fig. 8. 
It was deemed advisable not to quote the other authorities who have noticed this species, more than 
one coral being probably described under the same name. 
The Russian fossil assigned to Lithod. fasciculatum differed not essentially in any of its details from 
specimens obtained at Bristol, and identical with Parkinson’s figure quoted by Prof. Phillips. 
Locality and Formation. — River Tchussovaya, west flank of Ural Mountains. Carboniferous limestone. 
Cladocora ? sarmentosa, sp. n. 
Stems cylindrical, slender, fasciculated ; lamella simple, alternately broad and very narrow , interstitial 
plates very irregular ; centre no axis, but blending oflamellce; external wall thin, fine transverse ridges. 
This coral resembled externally and in mode of growth the Lithodendra of the carboniferous limestone, 
but it had no axis or upturned central diaphragms, nor were the adjacent stems in any way united. In 
