94 PLUMATELLA REPENS. 



" Corallenartiger Kamm-Polyp." a reference so discordant as to render it very difficult to 

 determine the animal Linneeus had in view in his Tubipora repens. Linnseus's short descrip- 

 tion, however, plainly excludes the " Polype a Panache ; " and that the original of the Tubipora 

 rcpens was really Schaffcr's animal seems confirmed by the ' Fauna Suecica,' published in 

 1761, where Jhibipora repens is also given, but with Schaffcr's animal quoted as the only 

 synonym. 



In the twelfth edition of the ' Systema Naturae,' published in 1767, Tubipora repens is 

 altogether omitted ; but in this edition a new species is introduced under the name of Tubu- 

 laria campanulata, with the following short diagnosis : 



" T. reptans tubis campanulatis." 



The animal thus defined is without any doubt the "Polype a Panache" of Trembley, 

 though to the real synonyms of the " Polype a Panache " there is added " Schaffer, tab. 1, 

 fig. 9." The Tubularia campamdata is intended to replace the Ht/dra campanulata of the 

 tenth edition, which however, as there described, is certainly an imaginary species, founded on 

 the fifth and sixth figures of Bseck's plate in the ' Acta Suecica,' which are evidently drawn 

 from some animal very imperfectly observed, though most probably intended for the " Polype 

 a Panache." 



In 1773 we find O. F. Mtiller giving the name of Tubularia repens to a polyzoon which 

 he found in the fresh waters in Denmark, and which he viewed as identical with Sch'affer's 

 "Kamm-polyp." If Miiller be correct in this view — and there is certainly every reason to 

 think he is — the true synonyms of the Tubularia repens of Miiller will be Tubipora repens, 

 Linnaeus, and " Corallenartiger Kamm-polyp," Sch'aft'er. 



It is evident that Linnceus had a very imperfect idea of his Tubipora repens, but we are 

 now happily no longer left in doubt as to the nature of the animal in question ; for though 

 both Sch'affer's and Linnaeus's descriptions are very meager, MiiUer's, on the contrary, is full 

 and perspicuous, though unfortunately not accompanied by an original figure ; so that we are 

 compelled to have recourse to the figures of Schaffer, to which Miiller refers us, and which, 

 though very imperfect, would seem sufficient for the purposes of identification ; one represents 

 a small portion of the coencecium of the natual size creeping spirally round the stem of some 

 aquatic plant ; the other is a portion magnified, with three polypides in three different states 

 of exsertion. 



From this time we find writers relying almost exclusively on the description of Miiller, and 

 after some notices of minor importance by different authors, we find the name given by Miiller 

 introduced into the ' Systema Naturae ' by Gmelin, who in his edition of this great work, 

 published in 1789, makes mention of the Tubularia rcpens with Midler's diagnosis. 



In 1804 a new element of confusion was introduced into the synonymy of this species by 

 Vaucher, who mentions the occurrence of Tubularia repens, and adds incidentally, that its ova 

 are elongated : this naturalist accompanies his notice with a figure, which, however, in no 

 respect agrees with Midler's description ; and I have no hesitation in considering the animal 

 which Vaucher, under the belief that it was the same as that described by Miiller, calls 

 Tubularia repens, to be quite distinct from this species ; it comes nearer to Plumatella 

 emarginata of the present monograph ; and indeed, were it possible from Yaucher's data to 

 form any opinion of value on this subject, I should not be disinclined to view it as identical 

 with the latter, though the description and figures of Vaucher are so very imperfect as to 



