PLU.MATELLA REPENS. 95 



render it impossible to decide with satisfaction on his species. The T. lucifuga of Vaucher 

 on the other hand, comes much nearer to the true Tiihularia repens, and is probably identical 

 with it, for the number of tentacula which he ascribes to the species is evidently the result 

 of having observed the polypide in a very partially exserted state, and therefore goes for 

 nothing in the description. 



We next find Midler's Tuhidaria repcns enumerated by Turton in his edition of the 

 ' Systema Naturse,' 1806. In 1816 we have Lamarck substituting the generic name of 

 Plumafclla for that of Tiihularia, as applied to the fresh-water Polyzoa, and describing, under 

 the name of Pliimatella repens, an animal for which he adduces Schaffer's figure, but which he 

 characterises from the erroneous description and figures of Vaucher ; the P. repens of Lamarck, 

 therefore, while it must be viewed as synonymous with Vaucher's Tubularia rejjens, can find 

 no place in the synonymy of the true Tubularia repens of Midler. Lamouroux, first in 1816 

 (Pol. Flex.), and afterwards in 1821 (Exp. Meth.), substitutes the name of Naisa repens for 

 Tubularia repens, employing Midler's diagnosis, though referring to Vaucher, and in the latter 

 work reproducing his figure. De Blainville, in 1834, enumerates without any diagnosis 

 Plumatella repens, quoting as synonyms the Tubularia repens both of Gmelin (Syst. Nat.) 

 and Vaucher. Gervais, in ' Ann. Fran?, et Etrang. d'Anat.,' 1839, enumerates also without 

 description the Plumatella repens, quoting among his synonyms not only Sch'affer and Midler, 

 but also Vaucher. The Plumatella repens of Johnston (Brit. Zooph. edit. 1 and 2, 1838 and 

 1847) is the true animal of Schiiffer and Midler. Lastly, Van Beneden (Recherches sur les 

 Bryozoaires fluviatiles, 1848) describes, under the name of Plumatella rejjens, a Polyzoon 

 which I cannot safely refer to the original Tubularia re2)ens ; Miiller's character, " Tubuli basi 

 angustati apice crassiores," does not at all agree with it, while the elongated ova approach 

 it to Vaucher's Tubularia repens, and to the Plumatella emarginata of this monograph and 

 of my Synopsis, published in the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' 1844, from 

 which, however, it is separated by the absence of a furrow. The Plumatella campanulata, 

 on the contrary, of Van Beneden is doubtless identical with the true Tubularia rejjens of the 

 Danish naturalist, and with the animal here described under the name of Plumatella repens 

 var. a. 



While the " Corallenartiger Kamm-polyp " of Schiiffer thus formed the basis of the 

 various synonyms now enumerated, the animal described by Rosel (Insecten Belustigung, 

 1755) under the name of " Federbusch-polyp," was made the basis of another series of 

 synonyms. This Polyzoon was first systematically named by Pallas, who described it in his 

 'Elenchus,' published in 1766, giving to it the name of Tubularia gelatin osa. We afterwards 

 find Blumenbach (Handbuch der Katurg. 1777) describing it under the name of Tubularia 

 campanulata, with the following diagnosis, which is evidently formed from the incorrect 

 account given by Rosel : — 



" T. crista lunata orificiis vaginas annulatis corpore intra vaginam abscondito." 



Next comes Gmelin (' Syst. Nat.' 1789), who also describes it, employing both the name 

 and diagnosis of Blumenbach. We have already seen that the Tubularia campanulata of the 

 'Systema Naturae,' 1767, was a totally different animal, namely the " Polype a Panache" of 

 Trembley. Rosel's animal is next described in Dr. Turton's edition of the ' Systema Naturae,' 

 1806, under the name of Tubularia reptans, the Tubularia campanulata of this edition being 

 the same as that of the edition of 1767. From this time forwards, the specific name campa- 



