BRYOZOA. 685 



The FISTULIPORID.E as recognized by him contains besides those 

 genera that we place there, also Actinotrypa, Callopora, Callo- 

 porella and Callotrypa. In his definition of the first of these 

 genera (p. 291,) the only feature mentioned as distinguishing- 

 it from Dichotrypa, which he places among the STICTOPORID.E, 

 are the radial striae that extend down the vestibular portion of 

 the zooecial aperture in Actinotrypa. And yet the two genera 

 are placed into different families. It is now a well established 

 fact that Callopora is without the interstitial vesicles which char- 

 acterize the FISTULIPORID.E, and, therefore, ought not to belong 

 to the same family. The same is true of Callopoi-ella and Callo- 

 trypa, but the latter has the structure of the BATOSTOMELLIDJE, 

 its systematic position being intermediate between Bythopora 

 and Leioclema. He also places in this family (the FISTULIPORHXE) 

 Eridopora, Lichenotrypa and Selenopora, a reference that we 

 believe correct, at any rate more so than under the CERAMO- 

 PORID.E, where they also occur. 



The HELIOTRYPID.E includes, as in our work, only the genus 

 Heliotrypa. But why is this genus also placed with the STICTO- 

 PORID.E as we will see presently? 



The next family is the LABECHIID.E, with one genus, Labechia 

 Ed. & H. Mr. Miller himself seems to have doubted that this 

 genus belongs to the Bryozoa, since on p. 310, he supplements 

 his definition with this remark: "Probably this genus belongs 

 to the Protozoa and is related to the Sponges." We were not 

 aware that anyone doubted that Labechia is an unequivocal Stro- 

 matoporoid, and consequently far removed from the Bryozoa. 



The PALESCHARID.E and PHACELOPORID.E include as with us each 

 only its typical genus. 



Under the PTILODICTYONID.E, however, he has struck out Clath- 

 ropora, Arthropora, Intrapora, Semiopora Stictoporella and 

 Tseniodictya, all of which, except the first and fourth, that, as 

 has been stated alreadj 7 , he refers to the FENESTELLID.E, he places 

 with the STICTOPORID.E, a course that is unwarranted if we credit 

 zooecial features with importance in the framing of our classifi- 

 cations. Furthermore, our family STREBLOTRYPIDJ-: is set aside 



