570 Canon A. M. Norman — Notes on the 



character, pointed to much closer relationship to what Hincks 

 called Mastigophora. Recently Levinseu {' Studies on 

 Bryozoa/ 1902, p. 26) has intimated his intention of re- 

 moving some other " Schizoporellae " into the same genus. 



Mastigophora, Hincks. — This genus ought not to have 

 Leen instituted unless the genus Herentia, Gray, had been 

 used for some other form, since the first species which Gray 

 placed in the genus was Herentia Hyndmanni, the very species 

 which Hincks made the type of his Mastigophora. But, as 

 intimated in the preceding paragraph, Escharina, H. Milne- 

 EdAvards, must apparently take precedence of both these 

 names. 



Lepralia, Hincks. — This has no connexion whatever with 

 Lepralia, Johnston. It does not contain a single species 

 which Johnston had placed within it when the genus was 

 formed ! Moreover, an extraordinary liberty has been taken 

 here. Eschara foliacea, the type species of the oldest genus 

 of Cheilostomata except Cellepora, is actually submerged in 

 the Lepralia of Hincks and the genus slaughtered. 



Umbonula, Hincks. — The type U. verrucosa, Esper; but 

 this same species is the type of the old genus Discopora, 

 Lamarck (see Lamarck and Lamouroux, the latter author 

 deciding the type) . 



Escharoides of Smitt and Hincks is not Escharoides, 

 Lamarck, the type of which is Cellepora coccinea, Abildgaard 

 (see Lamarck and Gray, Avho determine the species intended 

 by their references to Eleming and Johnston); 



Mucronella, Hincks. — If some doubt existed as to the species 

 which was described by the name Cellepora coccinea, it 

 certainly was either what is now known as coccinea or ventri- 

 cosa, Johnston, both of which species Avere included in the 

 Mucronella of Hincks, which therefore ought to have borne 

 the name Escharoides, H. Milne-Edwards ; but if il/. coccinea 

 is now placed in a different genus from M. ventricosa, as 

 must, I think, be the case, Gray's genus Eschar ella, 1848, 

 should be used for the ventricosa group. Gray placed in his 

 genus three species — immersa, Fleming (^ = Peachii, John- 

 ston), viulacea, Johnston, and variolosa, Johnston, — the first 

 and third of which would remain in it. Escharella, Gray, 

 18-18, is not the subsequently described Escharella, d^Orbigny, 

 1850, nor Escharella, Smitt, 1867. 



Since the publication of the * History of British Marine 

 Polyzoa' most valuable work has been carried out by many 

 students on the structure — using the word in its widest sense 

 — of the Escharine Polyzoa. But I shall refer here only 



