ADDENDA. 



Since the following pages were in tyj)e I have seen the Rev. 

 Mr. Hinckes' work on British Polyzoa. It was too late for 

 me to make use of it, though the reasons alleged by him hardly 

 convince me ahout the use of the term Polyzoa. While ex- 

 pressing my warm admiration for the labours of the author, 

 which place him in the front rank of all writers on the subject, 

 I may be allowed to express my regret that in his essay on the 

 classification all reference to certain foreign genera has been 

 omitted. I am quite inclined to adopt his views as to the 

 suppression of the genus Eschara, and the use of Cellepora for 

 Celleporaria. I still think that Salicornaria should be separated 

 from Cellaria. 



In describing FascicuUpora there is some confusion in what 

 I say about the //wee previously known species. There were two 

 known in Europe, and one in New Zealand. I add that " at 

 one time I was of opinion that we had an existing species 

 in the Australian seas, but this was certainly an error." The 

 error was in referring the specimen figu .ed at p. 187 of my 

 Geological Observations in South Australia to the genus. 



Mr. J. R. G. Goldstein, Secretary to the Microscopical 

 Society of Victoria, informs me that there is one, if not two, 

 species in the South Australian seas, in addition to F. ramosa of 

 Busk. With reference to the latter name, I regret to find that 

 I have overlooked the species described by Busk in the third 

 part of his British Museum Catalogue of Marine Polyzoa. He 

 has used D'Orbigny's genus as a synonym of Hagenow's Fungella. 

 I cannot think that this is correct, but the matter does not 

 admit of any examination previous to sending this essay to press. 

 If Professor Busk is right, my FascicuUpora should be Fascicu- 

 laria; but for the present I adhere to the nomenclature adopted, 

 for the reasons given already. 



J. E. T.-¥. 



23/-rf Octoher, 1880. 



