2 Mr. A. W. Waters on Australian Bryozoa. 



fication of Smittia and the allied genera as Mucronella and 

 Porella has never seemed to me satisfactory. On this account 

 comparative drawings of the apertures of a series are given. 



Until the weak points in our present classification are 

 weeded out but slight progress can be made in our knowledge 

 of geographical distribution, and all complete descriptions and 

 working out of structures are helping towards this, while 

 premature alterations are to be avoided. 



In ScMzoporella as now understood there are a number of 

 forms with the true aperture emarginate and having a distinct 

 sinus, such as 8. Cecilii ; then there are others where the lower 

 part of the aperture is subtriangular, with lateral denticles, 

 such as S. lata, MacGr., S. amhitaj W., &c., and these should 

 probably be separated. 



Since my last paper Mr. Whitelegge has published an 

 important communication on some Australian Bryozoa *, 

 dealing principally with the Lunulttes gvoup, and it is to be 

 hoped that he will continue to use his opportunities to add to 

 our knowledge of the structure of the Australian Bryozoa. 



Mr. Whitelegge has favoured me with further specimens of 

 ^^ FlaheUopora " elegans, d'Orb., and I feel no doubt as to the 

 correctness of my identification. Probably Mr. Whitelegge 

 will not mind my pointing out a fact of which he is now 

 aware, namely that d'Orbigny only described Flabellojjora 

 elegans as recent and not fossil. 



I have been informed that the locality mentioned (' Annals,' 

 1887, XX. p. 193) as Eaton, New Guinea, should be Katow, the 

 manuscript label with the specimen having been misread. 



In my Supplementary ' Challenger ' Ileport Eetepora jack- 

 somensis, B., and B. victoriensis, MacG., are united. 



Menibranipora corhula, Hincks. 



This species, mentioned in my previous paper, also occurs 

 from Green Point. There is great variation in the size of the 

 oral spines, so that sometimes the difference is not very marked 

 between these and the spines over the front of the zooecium. 

 The ovicell is frequently umbonate — in fact it may sometimes 

 be described as a spinous umbo. I have a badly preserved 

 specimen among some things from New Zealand (probably 

 Napier), and in this the ovicell is also umbonate. M. corhula 

 and M. armata are so similar that it may be doubted whether 

 they are more than two extreme forms of the same thing. 



* Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, ser. 2, vol. ii. p. 337 ; also reprinted 

 in the ' Annals,' ser. (>, \o\. i. p. 13. 



