982 REPORT—1850. 
tuting the generic name of Plumatella for that of Tubularia, as applied to 
the freshwater Polyzoa. and describing, under the name of Plumatella re- 
pens, an animal for which he adduces Schaffer’s figure, but which he cha- 
racterizes from the erroneous description and figures of Vaucher; the P. 
repens of Lamarck, therefore, while it must be viewed as synonymous with 
Vaucher’s Tubularia repens, can find no place in the synonymy of the true 
Tubularia repens of Miller. V.amouroux, first in 1816 (Pol. Flex.), and 
afterwards in 1821 (Exp. Méth.), substitutes the name of Matsa repens for 
Tubularia repens, employing Miiller’s diagnosis, though referring to 
Vaucher, and in the latter work reproducing his figure. De Blainville, in 1834, 
enumerates without any diagnosis Plumatella repens, quoting as synonyms 
the Tubularia repens both of Gmelin (Syst. Nat.) and Vaucher. Gervais, 
in Ann.'Frane. et Etrang. d’Anat., 1839, enumerates also without description 
the Plumatella repens, quoting among his synonyms not only Schaffer and 
Miiller, but also Vaucher. The ‘Plwmatella repens of Johnston (Brit. Zooph. 
edit. 1 and 2, 1898 and 1847) is the true animal of Schaffer and Miiller. 
Lastly, Van Beneden (Recherches sur les Bryozoaires fluviatiles, 1848) de- 
scribes, under the name of Plumatella repens, a Polyzoon which I cannot 
safely refer to the original Zubularia repens; Miller's character, “ Tubuli 
basi angustati apice crassiores,” does not at all agree with it, while the elon- 
gated ova approach it to Vaucher’s Tubularia repens, and to the Plumatella 
emarginata of this Report and of my Synopsis, published in the ‘ Annals and 
Magazine of Natural History,’ 1844, from which however it is separated by 
the absence of a furrow. The Plumatella campanulata, on the contrary, of 
Van Beneden is doubtless identical with the true Tubularia repens of the 
Danish naturalist, and with the animal here described under the name of 
Plumatella repens var. ἃ. : 
While the “Corallenartiger Kammi-polyp” of Schaffer thus formed the 
basis of the various synonyms now enumerated, the animal described by 
Roésel (Insecten Belustigung, 1755) under the name of “ Federbusch-polyp,” 
was made the basis of another series of synonyms. This polyzoon was first 
systematically named by Pallas, who described it in his ‘ Elenchus,’ published 
in 1766, giving to it the name of Tubularia gelatinosa. We afterwards find 
Blumenbach (Handbuch der Naturg. 1777) describing it under the name of 
Tubularia campanulata, with the following diagnosis, which is evidently 
formed from the incorrect account given by Rosel :— 
«Τ᾿, crista lunata orificiis vagine annulatis corpore intra vaginam abscon- 
dito.” 
Next comes Gmelin (Syst. Nat. 1789), who also describes it, employing 
both the name and diagnosis of Blumenbach. We have already seen that 
the Tubularia campanulata of the ‘Systema Nature,’ 1767, was a totally 
different animal, namely the “ Polype ἃ Panache” of Trembley. Rosel’s 
animal is next described in Dr. Turton’s edition of the ‘ Systema Nature,’ 
1806, under the name of ZYubularia reptans, the Tubularia campanulata of 
this edition being the same as that of the edition of 1767. From this time 
forwards, the specific name campanulata continued to be employed by the 
greater number of naturalists for Rdsel’s Federbusch-polyp, and we find ac- 
cordingly this little animal so designated by Lamarck, De Blainville, Du- 
mortier, and Gervais. 
The next question of importance is the determination of the exact relation 
which the two series of synonyms just enumerated hold to one another. In 
order to form an accurate opinion on this point, it will be necessary to bear 
in mind the fact, that P. repens presents two distinct variations. In the first 
of these (Var. @), which must be viewed as the normal and typical condi- 
