ON FRESHWATER POLYZOA. 331 
Suecica, published in 1761, where Zubipora repens is also given, but with 
_ Schaffer’s animal quoted as the only synonym. 
In the twelfth edition of the ‘ Systema Nature,’ published in 1767, Tudbi- 
pora repens is altogether omitted ; but in this edition a new species is intro- 
duced under the name of Tubularia campanulaia, with the following short 
diagnosis :— 
“ T. reptans tubis campanulatis.” 
The animal thus defined is without any doubt the “ Polype 4 Panache” 
of Trembley, though to the real synonyms of the “ Polype ἃ Panache” there 
is added Schiffer, tab. 1. fig. 2. The Tubularia campanulata is intended to 
replace the Hydra campanulata of the tenth edition, which however, as 
there described, is certainly an imaginary species, founded on the fifth and 
sixth figures of Beck’s plate in the ‘ Acta Sueeica,’ which are evidently 
drawn from some animal very imperfectly observed, though most probably 
intended for the “ Polype a Panache.” 
In 1773 we find O. F. Miiller giving the name of Tubularia repens to a 
polyzoon which he found in the fresh waters in Denmark, and which he 
viewed as identical with Schiffer’s “‘Kamm-polyp.” If Miiller be correct 
in this view—and there is certainly every reason to think he is,—the true 
synonyms of the Tubularia repens of Miller will be Tubipora repens, Lin- 
neus, and “ Corallenartiger Kamm-polyp,” Schaffer. 
It is evident that Linnzus had a very imperfect idea of his Tubipora re- 
pens, but we are now happily no longer left in doubt as to the nature of the 
animal in question; for though both Schaffer’s and Linnzeus’s descriptions 
are very meagre, Miiller’s,.on the contrary, is full and perspicuous, though 
unfortunately not accompanied by an original figure; so that we are com- 
pelled to have recourse to the figures of Schaffer, to which Miller refers us, 
and which, though very imperfect, would seem sufficient for the purposes of 
identification : one represents a small portion of the ccencecium of the natural 
size creeping spirally round the stem of some aquatic plant; the other is a 
portion magnified, with three polypides in different states of exsertion. 
From this time we find writers relying almost exclusively on the descrip- 
tion of Miiller, and after some notices of minor importance, we find the name 
given by Miiller introduced into the ‘Systema Nature’ by Gmelin, who in 
his edition of this great work, published in 1789, makes mention of the Zu- 
. bularia repens with Miiller’s diagnosis. 
- In 1804 a new element of confusion was introduced into the synonymy of 
this species by Vaucher, who mentions its occurrence, and adds incidentally, 
that its ova are elongated: this naturalist accompanies his notice with a 
figure, which, however, in no respect agrees with Miiller’s description ; and 
_ LT have no hesitation in considering the animal which Vaucher, under the 
belief that it was the same as that described by Miiller, calls Tubularia re- 
pens, to be quite distinct from this species; it comes nearer to Plumatella 
emarginata of the present Report ; and indeed, were it possible from Vaucher’s 
data to form any opinion of value on this subject, I should not be disinclined - 
to view it as identical with the latter, though the description and figures of 
Vaucher are so very imperfect, as to render it impossible to decide with 
satisfaction on his species. The 7. lucifuga of Vaucher, on the other hand, 
comes much nearer to the true Tubularia repens, and is probably identical 
with it, for the number of tentacula which he ascribes to the species is evi- 
dently the result of having observed the polypide in a very partially exserted 
state, and therefore goes for nothing in the description. 
_ We next find Miiller's Tubularia repens enumerated by Turton in his 
edition of the ‘Systema Nature,’ 1806. In 1816 we have Lamarck substi- 
