213 



two distal and two proximal teeth as in Cellnlarki rigida and several other spe- 

 cies. In E. rhomboidalis and E. eletjans the structure of the ooecia seems to be 

 similar to that in Celliilaria. 



Suborder Ascophora. 



A compensation-sac occurs, which most often opens out immediately on the 

 proximal side of the operculum, more rarely further hack through a median pore 

 (an ascopore). The operculum is generally a compound one more or less strongly 

 chitinized, consisting of a distal valvular part bounded by the hinge-line and 

 opening outwards, and of a proximal part opening inwards, which may be looked 

 upon as the operculum of the compensation-sac. More rarely a simple operculum 

 is found the proximal margin of which coincides with the hinge-line, and in 

 that case the compensation-sac opens out through a median pore. The hetero- 

 zooecia have as a rule a calcified transverse bar between the opercular area and 

 the subopercular area. 



Family Catenariidae ' nov. nomen. 



Catenicellidae auct. 



(Pis. X-XIII, IMs. XX, XXI, XXIII). 



The frontal surface consisting of a gymnocyst has either a semi-circle of 

 larger or smaller fenestra; (most often 5 — 7) or a number of scattered, larger or 



' 111 our of Ihu platos (Pulypes, PI. l.'i) ;icci)m|);iii\ iiif^ tliL' fireat work on Egypt S ;i v i g n y wlio did 

 not siicct'cil ill describing the Brijozoa, of which lie lias given so excellent figures, has at the hottoin of 

 tlie plate designated two species in the plate luimbered as 1 and 2, as »Catenaires" and as lie always 

 ill his plates designates the genera with a Kiench name in the plural form very similar to the 

 Latin generic name (,e. g. Kuphrosynes := Euphrosi/nc, I'olynocs = Polynoe, Terehelles = Terehella. 

 Gemellaries = Gemellaria, Chlidonies = Chlidonia) there cannot be the least doubt that the French 

 name »Catenaires'i corresponds to a Latin generic name Catenaria. Audouin, who has given iiaincs 

 to Savigny's species, without regard to the generic name given bySavigny, refers the two spe- 

 cies to the genus Eiuralca and names tlrc-m E. Conlci and E. Lafontii. To this genus however, they 

 do not belong. In Manuel d'Actinologie p. 4(!'2 li 1 a i n v i 1 1 e admits that Savigny has established 

 a genus Ciilriuiriii, but without justification iinidilies the name to Catenicella, and to this genus he 

 refers (kilciuiriK Conlci, the name of which he changes to ('., Saingni/i. The definition Blainville 

 gives of the genus Catenicella is partly made from Savigny's figures of C. Contei partly fnnii 

 Ilipjiollioii ilii'diirdfa which lie thinks is jierhaps identical with C. Contei, and Blainville ha,s thus 

 cuinpktely misumlerstood the genus to which bis name has ever since been associated. D'Orbigny 

 has laUr iiislitiiled a genus Catenaria in which he placed C. Lufonli. I propose to keep the genus 

 Cdlrniiriii Sa\igiiy with the type-species f.'. Contei, but whether .Savigny's name is acknowledged 

 or not, H 1 a i 11 V i I 1 e' s name cannot in any case be maintained. If Savigny is acknowledged as author 

 of the genus Ciiteniiria then the name Catenicella is only a synonym and if not, it is in my opinion 

 absolutely contrary to good sense that iJ I a i n v i 1 1 e ' s name should be associated with a genus which 

 lie lias not only completely misunderstood but of which be has not seen any species. In that case 

 the genus must be named Vittaticella Maplestoue, 



