Ascocllctyon and Rhopalonaria. 87 



tion with the above details may be the means of lielping others 

 in their researches among the micaceous and other shales of 

 the Ludlow series of rocks. My labours are entirely confined 

 to the Wenlock series and some only of the shales over the 

 Wenlock Limestone. 



I do not think it necessary to speak more fully now of the 

 genera Ascodictyon and Rhopalonaria, It is important, how- 

 ever, in vindication of my remarks, to make some reference to 

 the various opinions on the organisms which Prof. Nicholson 

 gives in the section of his paper entitled " Systematic Position 

 and Affinities " {I. c. p. 466). He says, in the first place, that 

 Dr. Strethill Wright (to whom Scotch specimens of A. radians, 

 Nich. & Eth., were submitted for examination) '' was unable 

 to throw any light upon their nature." Prof. Huxley, to 

 whom the same specimens were submitted, after considerable 

 hesitation, suggested that they might be Protozoa. Mr. 

 H. B. Brady, after a protracted examination of both the 

 Scotch and the American forms, has arrived at the conclusion 

 that they cannot be referred to the Foraminifera. Some of 

 the American specimens [A. fusiforme, N. & E., and A. 

 sfeUatuin, N. & E.) were kindly submitted by Mr. H. B. 

 Brady to the Rev. Thomas Hincks, who suggested that they 

 were possibly allied to the recent Anguinarioi. Neither Prof. 

 Nicholson nor Mr. Etheridge expresses any positive opinion 

 as to their systematic position or affinity. The difficulties 

 encountered by these various authorities when speaking of this 

 remarkable group are valuable so far in helping to establish 

 the uniqueness of the types submitted to them ; but none of 

 the suggestions help to throw light upon their nature and 

 affinity. Yet I have respected the whole of the remarks, and 

 have compared specimens of the fossil species with specimens 

 of every known living type suggested as " probable " by these 

 authors, but without any definite results. Perhaps it would 

 be wise to pause here, for it is not for me to suggest possible 

 affinities when so many experts have failed. Yet 1 cannot 

 allow the paper to pass out of my hands without making a 

 suggestion, which may possibly share the same fate as the 

 others. 



There are not, so far as I am aware, any Cyclostomatous 

 Polyzoa which may be considered as truly stoloniferous. 

 Some of the Hydrozoa are ; but I know of none whose 

 stolons are adherent to stone or shell, such as are found in 

 these ancient rocks, neither am I aware that the stoloniferous 

 Ctenostomatous Polyzoa are adherent to stone and shell, like 

 Ascodictyon or Illiopalonaria. Yet it seems to me that we 

 have, in Ascodictyon Jiliforme ai least, primitive representatives 



