330 REPORT—1850. 
The original figures are those of Pallas, Muller (embryo), Bruguiére, 
Schmiedel, Raspail, Meyen, Teale, Johnston, Van Beneden, and Dalyell. 
Distribution —Russia, Prussia, Germany, Denmark, France, Belgium, 
England, Scotland. 
2. Species nova. Alcyonella Benedeni, Allman. 
Spec. Char.—Ccencecium fungoid, formed of numerous vertical furrowed 
tubes. Ova narrow. 
Distribution.—England. 
3. Aleyonella flabellum, Van Beneden. 
Spec. Char.—Ceenecium flabelliform, composed of prostrate furrowed tubes. 
Ova broad. 
SYNONYMS. 
1848. Alcyonella flabellum. Van Beneden, Recherches sur les Bryoz. fluy. 
de Belg. p. 19, Mém. de |’Acad. Roy. de Belg. 1848. (Original 
figures. ) 
1850. Alcyonella flabellum. Allman, Proc. Royal Irish Acad. vol. iv. p. 470. 
Distribution.— Belgium, England. 
Genus 4. PLuMATELLA, Lamarck (1816). 
Gen. Char.—Cceneecium confervoid, branched, composed of a series of - 
membrano-corneous tubular cells, each of which is continued into a short 
ramulus with a terminal orifice. Branches distinct from one another. 
Lophophore crescentic. Ova elliptical, with an annulus, but without 
marginal spines. 
Number of known species 10, of whieh 9 are British. 
1. Plumatella repens, Linnzus. 
Spee. Char.—Cceneecium irregularly branched, cells sub-claviform, desti- 
tute of furrow and keel. Tentacula about 60; margin of calyciform 
membrane distinctly festooned. Ova broad. 
Variation a.—Ccencecium closely adherent, creeping along the surface of 
various submerged bodies, to which the branches are attached in their entire 
length. 
Variation §.—Ccencecium attached only towards the origin, branches soon 
becoming free. 
SYNONYMS. 
It is scarcely possible to conceive of a species burdened with a more 
discordant and perplexing synonomy than that which encumbers the history 
of P. repens. In order to reduce this chaos to some sort of order, the first 
step is of course the determination of the exact animal which the original 
founder of the name had in view in his description. 
. In the tenth edition of the ‘Systema Nature,’ published in 1758, we find 
Linneus introducing an animal under the name of Tubipora repens, and 
placing it among his Lithophyta with the following diagnosis :— 
“ 'T. corallio repente filiformi dichotomo : tubis flexilibus cylindricis distan- 
tibus erectis. 
“ Habitat in aque dulcis plantis in Nymphea, &c. minuta.” 
The figures here referred to are Trembley’s “ Polype a Panache,” as copied 
by Beck in ‘ Acta Suecica,’ Rosel’s figures of his “ Federbusch-Polyp,” and 
Schaffer's figures of his “Corallenartiger Kamm-Polyp,” a reference so 
discordant as to render it very difficult to determine the animal Linnzus had 
in view in his Zubipora repens. Linneus’s short description, however, 
plainly excludes the “Polype ἃ Panache;” and that the original of the 
Tubipora repens was really Schaffer’s animal seems confirmed by the ‘ Fauna 
Steg, 
