34 Mr. R. Etheridge on Carboniferous Polyzoa. 



Glauconome into two sections : as defined by Lonsdale he has 

 referred, it to Acanthocladia, King, whilst another portion, 

 embracing the Tertiary species of Miinster, is made equiva- 

 lent to Vmcularia, Defrance*. Lastly, Dr. Stoliczkaf, so far 

 as I understand him, appears to consider Glauconome, Miinster, 

 identical with Salicornaria, Cuvier, 1817t, and not with 

 Vmcularia, which he retains as a separate genus§. 



It will be apparent from the foregoing remarks that consi- 

 derable difference of opinion has existed both as regards the 

 date of publication of Glauconome, Miinster, and its value as 

 a genus. I think it is tolerably clear that its publication took 

 place between the years 1826-29 ; probably Dr. Stoliczka is 

 near the mark in saying 1827, notwithstanding D'Orbigny's 

 statement to the contrary. Such being the case, it would have 

 precedence over Vmcularia, Defrance; and this I think it 

 undoubtedly has, instead of becoming a synonym of that 

 genus, as placed by De Blainville, Milne-Edwards, D'Orbigny, 

 Bronn, and others. This has been brought forward with much 

 force by the late Dr. Stoliczka. 



It was probably in view of this confusion that Prof. W. 

 King proposed the name Acanthocladia ; and it becomes an 

 open question whether we ought not to employ it for such 

 forms as those now under consideration instead of Glauconome, 

 Lonsdale. On the other hand the latter has become so 

 universally used for Polyzoa of the type of G. disticha, 

 Miinster, especially in this country and America, and has 

 amongst continental writers so much fallen into disuse (whether 

 rightly so or not is the question) for those of the type of _^. 

 marginata and G. hexagona, that I think we_ may, pending 

 further information, adopt Lonsdale's redefinition for Paleo- 

 zoic forms of the G. disticha type. This will become per- 

 fectly feasible if, as Dr. Stoliczka says, Glauconome,^ Miinster 

 (as typified by G. tetragona), is equivalent to Salicornaria, 

 Cuvier ; but of this I have not seen any confirmation. If, on 

 the contrary, Dr. Stoliczka is not correct in this, then Glauco- 

 nome must be regarded as having priority over Vincularia. 

 From this point of view Glauconome, Lonsdale, becomes nil, 

 and Acanthocladia, King, will have to be adopted for the 

 Palaeozoic forms. The whole question, however, requires 

 further elucidation. 



Synonymous with 6^^aMcor?o»ze, Lonsdale, and Acanthocladia, 

 King, is D'Orbigny's Penyiiretepora, a more extended descrip- 



* Lethfea Rossica, I860, i. pp. 384, 399. 



t Pal. Neu-Seeland, 1865, p. 144. 



X Regne Animal, iv. p. 75. 



§ Pal. Neu-Seeland, 1865. p. 152. 



