630 
APPENDIX A. (LONSDALE ON CORALS.) 
Fenestella reti/ormis ? 
Funnel-sliaped or foliaccous ; branches slender, approximate, bifurcated; cells small, bi-tri-serial,rows sepa- 
rated by narrow, irregularly tubercled ridges ; transverse processes short, occasionally cellular ; reverse 
side, outer surface smooth. 
In the list of synonyms in the Table, p. 255, the references to Goldfuss are limited for the reasons 
stated in the notice on Fen. infundibuUformis , and of the identifications given by Geinitz in the ‘ G*a 
von Sachsen,’ p. 98, it is considered that Retepora (Fen.) flustraceu should be omitted, the English fossil 
differing from Fenestella retiformis, as figured by Goldfuss (Petref. Gorg. infundibuUformis, pi. 36. fig. 2. 
b, c), in the extreme slenderness of the branches, and the absence of the persistent, closely-set row of 
cellular mouths, or possibly abraded vesicles, along the middle ridge. The reference to Ehrenberg, also 
given by Geinitz, should be equally omitted, as the fossil is not a corticiferous coral ; but it must be ob- 
served that Ehrenberg himself expresses doubts respecting the true nature of Goldfuss’s Gorgonia infundi- 
buliformis. (Beitriige, &c., p. 140, 1834.) 
The Russian specimen assigned doubtfully in this notice to Fen. retiformis had not been examined bv 
the describer when the table of Permian fossils was prepared. It agreed with M. Goldfuss’s figure 2 b, 
plate 36, in the foliaceous mode of growth, in the branches ranging parallelly and almost close together, 
in the angular form of the eelluliferous surface, and in the prominence of the lateral rows of mouths. 
Along the cast of the dividing ridge there was also a row of indentations, answering to the middle series 
of openings in figure 2 c of Goldfuss ; but they differed from the casts of the lateral rows of mouths in 
being conical pits and not annular impressions. No bifurcations are given in the figure last referred to, 
but in the Russian fossil they were numerous, and were preceded for a little distance by an interpolated 
row of cells, the three series being separated by two lines with conical impressions. 
Locality and Formation. — Kniaspavlova, near Arzamas. Permian. 
The two following species are from the Carboniferous system. 
Fenestella Veneris ? 
Foliaceous ; branches slender, straight, distantly bifurcated ; no increased width at the bifurcations ; trans- 
verse processes slightly curved upwards ; meshes elongated, narrow. 
Retepora Veneris, Fischer de Waldheim? Oryc. du Gouvem. de Moscou, p. 165. pi. 39. fig. 1. 
The specimen from which the above defective characters were obtained agreed perfectly with M. Fis- 
cher’s description and figures, but the siliceous mode of preservation, and the non-cellular surface only 
being exposed, nothing respecting the internal structure or the arrangement of the mouths could be 
ascertained. It was nevertheless considered correct to remove the fossil from the genus Retepora. 
Locality and Formation. — Stretinsk, south-east of Kungur. Carboniferous limestone. 
Fenestella Mortis ? 
Foliaceous ; branches flat, very broad previous to bifurcation, in generul unequally narrow immediately subse- 
quent ; meshes oval; cells 2-5 rows, alternate; transverse processes rarely cellular; vertical tubuli of 
intermediate layer relatively large ; reverse side, outer crust thick, smooth, minutely foraminated. 
Retepora Martis, Fischer de Waldheim ? Op. cit., p. 165. pi. 39. fig. 2 (Serpukhof). 
The specimen under consideration agreed, so far as it could be compared, with M. Fischer’s coral, but 
as a complete structural identity could not be made, it was deemed advisable to regard the specific deter- 
mination as doubtful. 
The specimen was slightly curved, about one inch and a quarter in height and breadth, the branches 
diverging as from a centre, and not from a funnel-shaped base ; and it was imbedded with the cellular 
