625 
APPENDIX A. (LONSDALE ON CORALS.) 
half the diameter ; the margin was sharp ; the edges of the lamella; projected slightly and the bottom 
was formed by the smooth surface of a diaphragm. 
Locality and Formation. Hill of ichirief, Kamensk, on the river Issetz, eastern side of the Ural Chain. 
Carboniferous limestone. 
Monticularia Sternbergii, Fischer. 
Hydnophora Sternbergii , Fischer de Waldheim, Oryctographie du Gouvern. de Moscou, p. 157. pi. 34. 
fig. 5 '. (Gregorievo, sixty versts south-west from Moscow.) 
Ihe specimen of this coral which was examined, consisted of soft, granular limestone, without a trace 
of animal secretion. The portions exhibiting the lamelliferous cones were of limited extent; but there 
was a perfect agreement in the number and character of rays, with M. Fischer’s description and unmag- 
nified figure. From the friable nature of the specimen, it was impossible to detect any extension inwards 
of the lamelliferous rays ; but it was believed, on account of the agreement in the characters of the cones 
with those of a recent specimen of Monticularia, and from the difficulty of referring them to casts of an 
Astrea or any allied genus, that the fossil had been rightly studied by M. Fischer. Professor Goldfuss, in 
the additions to the first volume of the Petrefacta, has identified his Astrea velamentosa, a Maestricht 
fossil, with Monticularia Sternbergii , but most clearly on insufficient grounds (Petref. pp. 68, 245. pi. 23. 
fig. 4). 
Locality and Formation. — Meslikovitza, Government of Kovno. Silurian ' 1 2 . 
Porites pyriformis, Ehrenberg. 
Beitriigc zur Kenntniss der Corallenthiere des Rothen Meeres, p. 120. 1831-1834. (Berlin Trans- 
actions, 1832.) 
Heliopora interstincla, Eichwald, Systeme Silurien de l’Esthonie, p. 211. 1840. 
In Mr. Murchison’s works on the Silurian System, part ii. p. 686, a list of other synonyms and refer- 
ences is given. 
It is believed, that the specific characters of the group of corals to which For. pyriformis belongs 
cannot be correctly determined, unless the specimens examined exhibit, not only the structure pos- 
sessed during growth, but that also which the polype developed at the period when it apparently ceased 
to add to the stony fabric. So far, however, as a comparison of equally immature specimens would 
permit an opinion to be formed, the Russian fossil presented no essential structural differences from that 
found in the Silurian formations of England, of Gothland, or of Malmoe Isle in the Bay of Christiania. 
With respect to the Eifel coral described and figured by Prof. Goldfuss, under the name of Astrea porosa, 
(Petref. pi. 21. fig. 7), and identified by him, as well as by all other authorities, with the Gothland fossil, 
or Porites pyriformis, the same stage of development presents, it is believed, no structural difference, 
with the exception, perhaps, of a greater breadth of the lamellae. This observation applies also to a coral 
common in the Devonian limestone of England, and assigned likewise to Por. pyriformis. In a notice, 
however, on one of the plates, illustrative of Professor Sedgwick and Mr. Murchison’s Memoir on the 
Devonian System of England (Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 2nd ser. vol. v. pi. 58. 1840), some specimens 
1 It has been considered necessary to retain the use of Lamarck’s generic name, on account of its having been 
very generally adopted, though proposed subsequently to Hydnophora. 
2 The locality of Meshkovitza, north of Shavli, in the government of Kovno (Lithuania), where our fragment was 
collected, is unquestionably Silurian ; whilst Fischer’s locality is carboniferous. Believing the identification of Mr 
Lonsdale to be correct, it does not appear to us absolutely necessary to suppose, that this species of coral is com- 
mon to the two systems ; for, after all, the Moscow specimen may have been derived from the northern drift in 
which fragments of Silurian rocks are not uncommon. — R. I. M. 
