'S72 ESCHARID.E. 



Bekenicea cocci nka, Flem. B. An. o3'3. 



Lepralia coccinea, Johns/. B. Z. ed. 2, 322, pi. Ivii. figs. 2, 3 : Busk, B.M. 



Cat. ii. 70, pi. Ixxxviii. 

 Lei'ralia tkidentata, Couch, Corn. Faun. pt. iii. 115, pi. xxii. fig. 5. 

 Lepralia appensa, Hassall, Ann. N. H. vii. 367, pi. ix. fig. 3. 

 Discofora appensa*, Smitt, loc. cit., Krit. Forteckn. iv. 27 & 175, pi. xxvii. 



fig. 177. 

 Lepralia Ballii, Johnst. B. Z. ed. 2, 321, pi. Ivi. fig. 5. 

 EsciiARiNA COCCINEA and Ballii, Gray, B.M. Bad. 124. 

 Lepralia mamillata, Searles Wood, Ann. N. H. xiii. 19 : Busk, Orag Pol. 



46, pi. vi. fig. 5 : Manzoni, loc. cit.. Sec. Contr. 6, pi. ii. 



fig. 8. 

 Lepralia pteropora, Eeuss, Polyp, d. Wien. Tertiarbeck. 81, pi. ix. fig. 26 



Mamoni, Bryoz. foss. Ital., Terza Contr. 4, pi. i. fig. 3t. 

 DiSTANSEscHARELLiNA PTEROPORA, D' Orb. Pal. Fr. ter. cret. v. 451. 

 Lepralia peregrina, Manzoni, loc. cit. 6, pi. i. fig. 5. 

 ? Lepralia fulgurans, id. loc. cit. 7, pi. i. fig. 6. 

 ? Lepralia quadricornuta, Dawson, Canad. Naturalist, 1857. 



* Smitt does not identify the present species with the Cellepora coccinea 

 of Abildgaard. He applies this name to M. Peachii and kindred forms. 

 Little is to be made of the figures in the 'Zoologia Danica'; and the descrip- 

 tion is sufficiently vague ; but the red colour is characteristic of the present 

 species, and its cells may be properly described as " urceolate ;" whereas 

 in neither of these points will the description fit M. Peachii. In a case 

 where absolute certainty is unattainable, it seem.s hardly worth while to dis- 

 turb the widely accepted nomenclature. 



t I perfectly agree with Manzoni that L. pteropora, Eeuss, and L. mamil- 

 lata, S. Wood, must be referred to the present species. There can be 

 little doubt that L. peregrina of this author (Bryoz. foss. Ital., 3rd Contrib. 

 pi. i. fig. 5) must rank with them. These forms exhibit mere differences of 

 superficial sculpture. L. fulgurans, Manzoni {op. cit. pi. i. fig. 6), also seems 

 to be nothing more than a variety of M. coccinea, although, in the absence 

 of specimens, I AVDuld not be understood to speak with certainty. 



I feel more doubtful about the Lepralia quadricornuta, Dawson, from the 

 Postpliocene deposits of Canada. I am indebted to Dr. Dawson's great 

 kindness for specimens of this form, as well as of many other Canadian 

 Polyzoa, both recent and fossil ; and, after careful examination, 1 am in- 

 clined to think that it must be regarded as a variety of the present species. 

 So far as the condition of the fossil allows me to judge, it agrees with the 

 latter in all its characters, with perhaps a single exception. The form and 

 sculpture of the cell and ovicell, the shape and position of the avicularia are 

 the same in both. The surface of the cell is adorned with radiating furrows, 

 and it is punctured round the base. The ovicell is small, round, recumbent ; 

 and in front of it two spines are distinctly visible, as in M. coccinea. The 

 difference between the two seems to lie in the degree in which the peristome 

 is developed. The condition of my specimen does not allow me to determine 

 this portion of the structure with as much precision as I could desire ; but 



