Rev. T. Hincks on the Terms Polyzoa and Bryozoa. 127 



Plate III. . 



Fig. 1. Pseudosquilla monoductyla, A. M.-Edwards, magnified. 



Fig. 2. Dactylus of raptorial limb of the same, further magnified. 



Fig. 3. Front of cephalic region, showing rostral plate of P. oculata, 

 Brulle, magnified. 



Fig. 4. Terminal segment and uropoda of the same, magnified. 



Fig. o. Front of cephalic region, showing rostral plate of P. ornata, 

 Miers, magnified. 



Fig. 6. Terminal segment and uropoda of the same, magnified. 



Fig. 7. Front of cephalic region, showing rostral plate of Pseudosquilla 

 ciliata (Fabr.), magnified. 



Fig. 8. Terminal segment and uropoda of the same, magnified. 



Fig. 9. Terminal segment and uropoda of Gonodactylus graphurm (White, 

 ined.), Miers (magnified). 



Fig. 10. Terminal segment and uropoda of Gonodactylus trispinosus, White 

 (ined.), Dana (magnified). 



Fig. 11. Gonodactylus excavatus, sp. n., magnified. 



Fig. 12. Terminal segment and uropoda of the same, further mag- 

 nified. 



Fig. 13. Gonodactylus furcicaudatus. sp. n., magnified. 



Fig. 14. Penultimate and last postabdominal segments, further mag- 

 nified. 



Fig. 15. Terminal segment, viewed from behind, showing the pits in its 

 posterior surface, magnified. 



Fig. 1C. Dactylus of one of the raptorial limbs, magnified. 



X. — On the Terms Polyzoa and Bryozoa. 

 By the Rev. Thomas Hincks, B.A., F.R.S. 



In the last number of the ' Annals ' Mr. A. W. Waters has 

 raised afresh the question as to the comparative claims of the 

 terms Polyzoa and Bryozoa. He decides in favour of the 

 latter, and urges its adoption, in opposition to the general 

 practice of English zoologists. 



This would be, in my judgment, a retrograde step ; it would 

 involve injustice to a most able and original observer ; and (as 

 I shall endeavour to show) it is not warranted by the facts of 

 the case. 



Mr. Waters is evidently under the impression that those 

 who adopt the name Polyzoa do so on the mere ground of its 

 priority and are wholly unacquainted with the contents of 

 J. V. Thompson's paper in which it was first introduced. He 

 expresses his confidence that, as soon as they are let into the 

 secret, they will hasten to transfer their allegiance to Ehren- 

 berg ! 



In this he is certainly under a misapprehension : some at 

 least of the strongest advocates for the retention of Thomp- 

 son's name have not contented themselves with ascertaining 



