ON BUDDING IN POLYZOA. 535 



of all other animals, and therefore it seems to be to be super- 

 fluous to coin a new term to express mesoblastic tissue. 



Joliet asserts that in some cases the bud is entirely derived 

 from the funiculus — Eucratea chelata, Vesicularia spi- 

 nosa (young zooecia), Beania mirabilis, Lepralin 

 Martyi, and L. granifera; in others, the bud is apparently 

 in intimate relation with the ' endocyst/ but always connected 

 with a funiculus — Membranipora membranacea, M. 

 pilosa, and possibly the old zooecia of Vesicularia spinosa. 

 It must be remembered that Joliet limits the term ' endocyst' 

 simply to the external epithelium (epiblast) of the body wall. 

 He says (pp. 221-2) : " When a bud forms anew upon the 

 endocyst of an old cell, one generally sees that it is very early 

 provided with a funiculus, which, even then, almost attains its 

 (proper) diameter; and ever since my attention has been drawn 

 to this point I have never seen a bud formed under these con- 

 ditions which lacked this attachment. I am thus driven to 

 believe that the buds develop by preference upon the points 

 of the endocyst where the strands, of which I have spoken, are 

 fixed, and thus from their earliest state they are naturally 

 provided with a funiculus." 



Thus Joliet is driven to admit, apparently against his in- 

 clination, that in some cases the 'endocyst,' outer epithelium 

 (epiblast), may participate in the formation of the bud, he 

 goes on to say (p. 247): "I should almost be tempted to 

 generalise and to say, to terminate, that in all the Bryozoa the 

 development of the polypide is made at the expense of the 

 pretended colonial nervous system, if the Pedicellinse did not 

 constitute, according to Salensky, a very serious and very 

 striking exception. This author, in a recent work (9), seeks 

 to demonstrate that the budding of the digestive tract, which 

 he compares to the Polypide, is made at the expense of the 

 endocyst. I here produce a figure certainly strongly resem- 

 bling his, and in which the bud is still reduced to five cells ; 

 but these cells do not appear to me to be directly united to 

 those of the endocyst, and have always appeared to me to have 

 more resemblance with the fusiform cells of the parenchyma. 



