142 Rev. T. Hincks’s Contributions towards a 
Farciminariadx, which form anything but a natural group. 
Indeed, in a natural system such a group could find no place. 
The characters on which the family is founded are merely 
zoarial, and the chief point relied upon as a diagnostic is the 
disposition of the zocecia round an imaginary axis, so as to 
form cylindrical branches. Such a family diagnosis would 
include a miscellaneous and artificial group between whose 
members there might be little, if any, natural affinity. Verru- 
cularia dichotoma, v. Suhr, would be an alien amongst the 
forms which compose the family Farciminariade of Busk. 
MacGillivray has noticed the “ close affinity ” in structure 
between Flustrella and the present form *, and remarks that 
“it undoubtedly forms a close connecting-link between the 
two suborders”’ (Cheilostomata and Ctenostomata) ; but, 
“ notwithstanding the absence of avicularia and ocecia and 
the structure of the mouth,’ he would refer Verrucularia 
dichotoma to the same Cheilostomatous family as Farciminaria. 
No reasons are given in support of this decision, but there is 
much to be said against it. 
The mode in which the zocecia are disposed and the habit 
of the zoarium, it is now generally admitted, are not characters 
which can be relied upon as indications of natural affinity. 
Agreement in these points is commonly associated with the 
most significant structural differences. In the present case 
the two forms in question are distinguished by very different 
types of orifice and oral operculum. In Farciminaria the 
orifice presents the normal Cheilostomatous character; in 
Verrucularia dichotoma it is distinctly bilabiate, bounded 
above and below by a chitinous rib, the lower one (probably) 
connected with a movable lip. This is an important differ- 
ence, which forbids the union of the two forms in the same 
family group. 
The present condition of my specimens of Verrucularia 
prevents me from completing my study of the structure; but 
enough has been determined to prove that it must be separated 
from Larciminaria. Provisionally, at least, it may be asso- 
ciated with /lustrel/a, with which it seems to be most closely 
connected. 
Ibid. (p. 368). 
Cellaria fistulosa, var. australis, MacGillivray. 
There is no doubt that this form should be accounted a 
distinct species, as I have suggested f. 
* “Zoology of Victoria,’ vol. ii. p. 348. 
+ See Waters, ‘Challenger’ Rep. p. 16, pl. ii. figs. 1-4, 
