HYDROIDA II 55 



which are partly or entirely lacking. If we were to follow the list, we should then be obliged, as Pro- 

 fessor M. Bedot writes me in a letter on this matter, to alter the generic name for all the over 200 

 species which have hitherto been noted under genus Plumularia. There is, as Professor Bed o t further 

 writes, nothing to suggest that Lamarck, the founder of the genus, ever regarded Plumularia pin- 

 nata as the type species in preference to any other then known species of the genus. There would seem 

 much more reason to establish Plumularia setacea as type species. That a generic distinction should 

 be made between Plumularia pinnata and the remaining species, where the sarcothecse are far more 

 highly developed, and generally appear partly paired, is beyond all doubt; this Stechow (1913 p. 25) 

 also points out, and suggests Kirchenpaueria as generic name for the group, but without going further 

 into the matter. 



There are indeed several objections to be made to the mentioned list as regards the hydroids. 

 That the authors note the genera Clylia, Gonothyraea, PasytAea, Podocorync, and Schizotricha, may be 

 taken for a party contribution to the dispute as to leading fundamental principles in systematics, which 

 has no place in such a list, given without justification or explanation ; the effect here is merely to 

 create confusion, not to form a basis for firm and tenable conditions. Here again there is no question 

 of names rendered so familiar through the medium of the handbooks as to have any claim to acknow- 

 ledgement on that count. Furthermore, the revival of a name such as Monocaulus is more confusing 

 than the retention of the later, generally employed appellation Branchiocerianthtis. The authors have 

 here evidently failed to realise that the type species given, imperator, does not as a matter of fact 

 occur at all in Allman's original Monocaulus genus, which was founded on northern Corymorpha 

 species with sessile gonophores, while the mentioned species was not found until later, by the "Chal- 

 lenger", and incorrectly placed in the genus Monocaulus, with the original diagnosis of which the spe- 

 cies does not agree at all. We ma}- further note the question as to whether Antennularia or Nemer- 

 tesia should be retained. The latter name is generally adopted in later works by Stechow, Broch 

 and Billard, and is likewise recognised in Bedot 's eminent historical nomenclature studies, and 

 neither of the names can be said to be of over frequent occurrence in the handbooks; the retention of 

 Antennularia is here less due to sound defensible reasons than it is a matter of taste. — But we can- 

 not here go farther into details with regard to this list ; the foregoing will be sufficient to show that 

 in its present form it is far from attaining the end proposed by discussion as to the retention of names 

 whose alteration would bring about confusion in zoological handbooks and teaching works. 



As regards the generic name Kirchenpaueria, there may be some little hesitation. The name 

 in question first appears as a synonym inKirchenpauer's paper Neue Bryozoen, Catalog IVdes Museum 

 Godeffroy, Hamburg 1869,, where we find Kirchenpaueria elegans Greeff in litt. = Reichornia Greeffei 

 Kirchenpauer. In the Bryozoa literature it occurs again only in E. C. Jelly, Synonymic catalogue of 

 the recent Bryozoa, London 1889, as Kirchenpaueria elegans Graeffe, Kirch, in litt. — Jickeli introduces 

 the name in 1883 for a hydroid which, as Bedot points out (1916 p. 641) is identical with Plumularia 

 pinnata. Strictly speaking then, we should according to the precise rules of nomenclature perhaps 

 rather have taken another name, but I regard it nevertheless as most correct for the present to follow 

 Bedot, as there can hardly be any risk of confusion thereby. The generic name Kirchenpaueria is 

 therefore here maintained for the genus whose type is Sertularia pinnata Linne. 



Kirchenpaueria pinnata (Linne) Bedot. 

 1758 Sertularia pinnata, Linne, Systema naturae, ed. 10, p. 813. 

 1916 Kirchenpaueria pinnata, Bedot, Sur le genre Kirchenpaueria, p. 645. 



Upright, singly pinnate colonies with monosiphonic or more rarely, in the basal part polysi- 

 phonic stem. Hydrocaulus divided into internodia with one or several apophyses alternating to either 



