90 PLUMATELLA REPENS. 



nulata continued to be employed by the greater number of naturalists for Rosel's Federbusch- 

 polyp, and we find accordingly this little animal so designated by Lamarck, De Blainville, 

 Dumortier, and Gervais. 



The next question of importance is the determination of the exact relation which the two 

 series of synonyms just enumerated hold to one another. In order to form an accurate opinion 

 on this point, it will be necessary to bear in mind the two variations a and /3, which P. rcpens 

 has been just described as presenting. Now, I believe, the " Corallenartiger-Kamm- 

 polyp" of Schaffer to correspond to the P. rcpens var. a of this monograph, while the 

 " Federbusch-polyp" of Rosel corresponds to the variation /3, and if so, the two animals must 

 be viewed as identical in species. Miiller believed them to be distinct, but he founded this 

 opinion on certain characters in the figures and description of Rosel, some of which were 

 obviously eiToneous, while others afforded no grounds for specific distinction at all. The 

 distinction, therefore, drawn by Miiller is nugatory, and the specific name campanulata, 

 applied by Blumenbach to Riisel's animal, and adopted by subsequent writers, is applicable 

 to no distinct species, and must therefore be expunged. 



If the above criticism be admitted — and it is what I have arrived at after a very laborious 

 examination — the synonyms of P. repens will stand thus : — 



Variation a. 



1754. Corallenartiger Kamm-polyp. Schaffer, Armpolypen, tab. 1, figs. 1, 2. 



(Original figures.) 

 1758. Tublpora repens. Linnffius, Syst. Nat., edit. x. 

 1761. Tubipora repens. Linnajus, Fauna Suecica, 2219. 

 1773. Tubularia repens. Miiller, Verm. ter. et fluv., vol. i, pars 2, p. 16. 

 1776. Tubularia repens. Miiller, Zool. Dan. Prod., 3064. 

 1781. Der polyp mit dem Feder-busch. Eichorn, Naturg. der Klcinst. Wasser- 



tliiere, tab. 4. (Original figure.) 

 1789. Tubularia repens. Gmelin, Linn. Sjst. Nat., p. 3835. 

 1804. Tubularia lucifuga ? Vaucher, Bull, de la Soc. Philomat., ann. xii, No. 81, 



pi. 19, figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.* (Original figures, bad.) 

 1806. Tuhdaria repens. Turton, Linn. Syst. Nat., vol. iv, p. 668. 

 1816. Plumatella lucifuga? Lamark, An. sans Vert., 1st edit., vol. ii, p. 108. 

 1816. Naisa repens. Lamouroux, Pol. flex. p. 223. 

 1821. Naisa repens. Lamouroux, Expos. INIetli., p. 16. (Not tlie figure tab. 68, f. 2, 



which is a copy of Vaucher's Tubularia repens.) 

 1824. Naisa lucifuga ? Deslougchamps, Encyc. ISIeth. Zoophytes, p. 562. 

 1826. Plumatella lucifuga ? Blainville, Diet. Sc. Nat., tom. xlii, p. 12. 

 1826. Plumatella calcaria ? Carus, Tabula; Illustrantes. (Original figure.) 

 1828. Alcyonella, tertius evolutionis gradus. Easpail, Mem. de la Soc. d'Hist. Nat. 



de Paris, vol. iv, p. 130. 

 1831. Alcyonella stagnorum. Ehrenberg, Syrab. Phys. Evert. Dec. 1, Pol., fol. a. 



* Fio-s. 9 and 10 evidently belong to T. repens on the same Plate, and are transposed by an error 

 of the engraver, while figs. 4 and 5 belong to T. lucifuga, though by a similar error they are placed 

 with T. repens. 



