354 Mr. N. T. Wctherell on a new species of Clionites. 



derable part, if not the greatest part, cannot have been published 

 before 1833 or 1834. 



Having thus endeavoured to show that the term ' Polyzoa ' has 

 a priority over ' Bryozoa ' of at least three, or more correctly 

 perhaps of six months, I cannot conclude without an additional 

 observation upon the former term, which after all does not ap- 

 pear to be used at present with strict propriety. It seems to 

 have escaped notice that the word ' Polyzoa ' is employed by Mr. 

 J. V. Thompson in the singular number, with the plural ^Poly- 

 zose,' which latter term ought in strict right therefore to be em- 

 ployed as the appellation of the Ascidioid Polypes. As, however, 

 the word has come to be generally employed, and, as far as regards 

 rules of construction, much more correctly employed, in the 

 plural sense, it may probably now be allowed to remain in peace 

 and to claim universal adoption. 



I am, your obedient servant, 



George Busk. 



XXXIII. — Note on a new species of Clionites. 

 By N. T. Wetherell, Esq., F.G.S., M.R.C.S. &c. 



[With a Plate.] 



During a recent visit to the Isle of Wight, I obtained among 

 other interesting fossils a specimen of flint which had evidently 

 formed a cast of a large species of Inoceramus, probably Inoce- 

 ramus Cuvieri. The specimen is about 10 inches in length, the 

 fibrous part of the shell having decayed away, with the exception 

 of some small portions. 



The cast itself exhibits a numerous but very irregularly dis- 

 posed series of small siliceous oviform bodies with a granulated 

 surface, and most of which were joined together by small threads 

 of flint. These bodies were unquestionably the casts of some 

 parasitic animal which perforated the test of the Inoceramus, and 

 which may possibly be due to a species of Clionites (C. Cony- 

 bearei), as they appear to resemble those generally referred to 

 that genus, described and figured in the 'Annals,^ vol. viii. pi. 4, 

 for August 1851, but from which they differ in form, as will be 

 seen by comparing the figures. 



Mr. Morris informed me that he had previously seen some 

 small specimens of the species in the collection of Dr. Mantcll, 

 but he rather doubted their specific value. The large specimen 

 now discovered, of which only a fragment is figured, and the 

 uniformity of the character would lead us to infer a specific dif- 

 ference, which I have much pleasure in dedicating to my friend 

 Dr. Mantell, who long ago noticed these singular bodies. Mr. 



