226 



HA R D WICKE ' S S CIE NCE - G O SSIP. 



Fenestella, called by Professor Duncan Palaeocoryne. 

 Many of these so-called organisms were common 

 enough, I believe, in the local collections of Scotland, 

 but undescribed. In the year 1869, Mr. James 

 Thomson, of Glasgow, took a fine series of these 

 fragments to the School of Mines, in Jermyn Street, 

 London. Being unable to obtain any information 

 respecting them there, he took them to the Geological 

 Society. Here they were examined by members, and 

 ultimately they passed into the hands of Professor 

 Duncan, who, with the assistance of Mr. Jenkins, 

 undertook the labour of describing and delineating 

 them. In due time an elaborate paper was read by 

 the chief author before the Royal Society, and after- 

 wards published in the Philosophical Transactions 

 for 1869. 



These " organisms" were called by the Professor, 

 Palaeocoryne, and an unquestionably unique classifi- 

 cation was created for their reception. 



Class ...... Hydrozoa. 



Order Tubularidae. 



Family Pateocorynidse. 



Genus Palaeocoryne. 



Their pakeontological relationship or affinities were 

 thus established for the time with the Hydrozoa — 

 a class singularly unhappy to place them among. 

 Being satisfied that the fossils should be admitted 

 among the hydrozoa, its anatomical structure must 

 assume the following names : 



The dactylose base = the hydrorhiza. 



The stem = the hydrocaulus. 



The tentacular body — the polypide. 



The ornamented hard tissue = the periderm, or 



polyzoary. 

 The faintly-traced genitive structures = the gonosome. 



The rest is embraced under the " trophosome." The 

 term " hydrozome " refers to the whole.* 



In his great work on the " Hydrozoa," published by 

 the Ray Society, 1872, Prof. Allman refused to 

 admit Palaeocoryne among that class in his mono- 

 graph. In his criticism on the zoological position 

 assigned to the fossils — and relying upon the accuracy 

 of the figures— he suggested, also most unhappily, 

 foraminiferous relations. Some of his reasons for 

 its rejection were given by Prof. Allman, but these 

 had been, to some extent, anticipated by Dr. Duncan 

 himself, for he says, " Were it not for the calcareous 

 investment, there would be no difficulty in admitting 

 the fossils among the hydrozoa : and had we not 

 been able to avail ourselves of the affinities of the 

 very anomalous genus Bimeria (Wright) the difficulty 

 could hardly have been overcome." f 



In May 1873, another paper was read before the 

 Geological Society, and ultimately published in their 

 journal.}: In this paper Prof. Duncan re-states his 

 former opinions, not more clearly, but still more 

 positively than in the "Phil. Transactions"; and in 



* Dr. Duncan, "Phil. Transactions," i86q. 

 + Ibid. y 



% "Quart. Journ. of the Geo. Soc." 1873. 



a letter to me (Nov. 1877) he stated that he desired 

 to hold his originally-formed opinions respecting the 

 hydroid character of Palaeocoryne till other and 

 better evidence were furnished to prove that he was 

 wrong. 



In one of the " Memoirs of the Geological Survey 

 of Scotland," Mr. Robert Etheredge, jun., says that 

 the "Survey specimens clearly demonstrate that 

 the base was not cellular, as originally stated by the 

 describers, but that the appearance was caused by 

 the growth of the organism over its object of attach- 

 ment, a species of Fenestella." * This error of judg- 

 ment, as well as of observation, on the part of Mr. 

 Etheredge — for Pakeocoryne is not a parasite — failed 

 to convince Dr. Duncan of his error. 



In December 1874, Prof. J. Young and Mr. John 

 Young, of the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, fur- 

 nished jointly two very excellent papers on "New 

 Carboniferous Polyzoa," and on "Palaeocoryne and 

 other Polyzoa appendages." f In the last of these 

 papers the Messrs. Young gave fresh and original 

 evidence, showing, by figures drawn with the camera 

 lucida, the probable relationship of all the species and 

 varieties of Palaeocoryne as appendages of the fene- 

 strate polyzoa. The discussion which followed the 

 reading of this paper was sufficiently characteristic 

 to prove that Prof. Duncan was not convinced, either 

 by the logic or by the figures of the Messrs. Young. 

 Generally speaking I can indorse the whole of the 

 reasoning founded upon the results of the investiga- 

 tions of the professor and Mr. John Young ; but 

 there are two remarks — the first and fifteenth — to 

 which I wish particularly to draw the attention of 

 the reader. " The structures named Palaeocoryne 

 are organically connected with the polyzoa on which 

 they occur ; the tissue of the one is continuous with 

 that of the other, the cells of the base of Palaeocoryne 

 being the cells of the polyzoon from which it springs; 

 these so-called organisms are only one type of the 

 processes which are given off by certain Palaeozoic 

 polyzoa. The stellate processes called Palaeocoryne 

 {radiata) are given off chiefly, if not exclusively, from 

 the poriferous — more rarely from the non-poriferous — 

 faces." % 



I am sorry that the opposition of Dr. Duncan so 

 far dwarfed his judgment as to allow him to assert 

 that the Messrs. Young — whose figures proved the 

 contrary — had mistaken pieces of Fenestella for 

 Palaeocoryne. This inappreciation of the special 

 evidence furnished in the reading of the paper must 

 have given a comic, rather than a scientific, interest 

 to the discussion ; and Mr. Jenkins also failed to 

 comprehend the whole value of the facts, when he 

 asserted that the recent polyzoa Bicellaria tuba 

 "possesses an appendage superficially resembling 

 Palaeocoryne, but without its definite form and struc- 

 ture. This appendage is very small in comparison 



* Explanation 23. Scotch Survey. 



t " Quart. Journ. of the Geo. Soc." vol. xxx., 1874. 



± Ibid. vol. xxx. 



