1 
OP SOUTHEPtN INDIA. 7 
belief that there exists any advantage, inucli less any necessity, for replacing it 
by Johnston’s name Lepmlia, as bad been suggested by Dusk. Indeed, an in- 
sight into the literature of the Ciliopoda will show, that until within the last few 
I years the name Cellepom has been used in all principal works of reference on this 
subject, and there is really not the least advantage to be gained by abandoning it 
at the present time. 
D’Orbi guy’s genera Heptescharella, IteptoporMa, Hepteschcmpom, R(=pto- 
porina, etc., arc of course to he referred to Cellepora ; for it is undouhtcdly absurd to 
attempt a classification of these forms by the presence or absence of any special 
or accessory pores, or avicularia, between the ordinary cells, or at various places on 
their surface. The idea loses all foundation l)y the examination of almost any 
single, tolerably lai’gc colony, whether recent or fossil. CcUs will 1)0 found 'ivith and 
without ovicells, and with none, or one, or two, or three avicidarian pores, some round 
the aperture, others distributed on the surface, which, again, may be smootli, or 
punctate, or porose. It is absolutely impossible to assign in many cases to these 
organs even a specific, much less a generic, distinction, Avhilc d’Orhigny went even 
so far as to base separate families upon them. I am now even in doubt whether 
there is sufficient ground for retaining the so-called free growing forms, composed 
of a single layer of cells, like Seniiescharipora, d’Orb., == Uemeschara, Busk, as 
distinct from Cellepora. I have uo sufficient materials to entirely disprove the 
propriety of this and similar generic separations, hut I know species of recent 
Cellepora; which, Avhile generally incrusting foreign substances, sometimes form 
hemispheric or foliaceous free lamcllse, as a part of one and the same colony, and 
when fragments of such free portions of that colony are met with fossil, they must, 
properly speaking, lic referred to Semiescharijwra, while the incrusting portion of 
the same colony is an unquestionable Cellepora. Again, there are certain species 
which not only incrust rocks or shells and the like, hut occasionally attach them- 
selves to plants and form variously shaped incrusting masses upon these. In a 
fossil state the vegetable substance is lost, and the incrusting colony becomes then 
a free grown one. Instances of this kind may be seen in abundanec on almost 
every shore where sea- weeds occm’. Eor these reasons I am inclined to abandon 
the presumed distinction between Cellepora and Semiescharipora. 
The genera Stegempora and Distegehipora must form a distinct family, and the 
same applies to Limulites, Cupullaria, etc., all of Avhich had been distriljuted among 
the % d’Orbigny. On the other hand, I believe that the uniserial 
forms, like Hippothoa, Alsydota and thch allies, must be classed in the cellkporinm. 
It does not occasionally appear to be easy to define among those last named genera the 
m-ceolate form of the cell from the tubular one, and I think scA^cral of d’Orbigny’s 
cretaceous species of Alecto must be classed Avith Alsydota and allied genera. 
2. Eschara, Day, 1721. 
Cells urccolate, arranged in quincunx, colonies erect, permanently attached 
with the base to foreign bodies, foliaceous or variously branched, and composed 
( 11 ) 
