40 
Mr. A. W. Waters on the 
22. Lepralia coccinea , Abild. 
Leprulia coccinea , B.M. Cat. p. 70. 
Loc. Upper Eocene of Northern Italy, and Miocene of 
Hungary. Pliocene: Castrocaro and Sicily from various 
places. Living : Northern seas to Mediterranean. 
23. Lepralia cucullata , Busk. (PI. X. fig. 4.) 
Escharina torquata, Edw. Voyage dans l’Amerupie par D’Orbigny, vol. 
v. p. 15, vol. ix. pi. iv. figs. 1-4. 
Lepralia cucullata, J3usk, Mar. Polyz. p. 81, pi. xcvi. figs. 4, 5, 
?Cellepora Magnevillana, Aud. in Sav. Egypte, pi. 8. fig. 6. 
fCellepura ovoidea, Aud. in Sav. Egypte, pi. 8. fig. 1 (non Lamx.). 
This species is very variable: sometimes there is no margin 
to the aperture ; in other cases it projects very much, swelling 
out especially on the two sides, when it reminds us of the 
lips of L. lahiosa. The surface is perforated with very large 
pores; and Mr. Busk’s description, u granular,” is neither cor¬ 
rect for this nor for the Britisli-Museum specimen of cucullata ; 
but as the thick black membrane almost covers the specimen, 
it may have been difficult for him to see the structure ; and on 
that account his fig. 4 is misleading ; in fact, until I had 
made a comparison I did not think they were the same. The 
cells vary also in shape from widely ovate to elongate. 
The operculum is very large and characteristic. At each 
side are two large round spaces, much thinner and lighter 
than the rest. The proximal end is nearly black with two 
light spots near the apex. In the specimen drawn (fig. 4 a) 
the proximal end is open ; but whether this is only the result 
of drying, or whether the animal can keep it open, I have not 
the opportunity of forming an opinion. Width of operculum 
(14*) '2 millim., length ‘22. The distal wall has normally six 
rosette-plates — four near the base, and one near each side above 
the two outside plates ; lateral wall eight plates, with nume¬ 
rous perforations. 
Loc. Aegean Sea ( Forbes ) ; Naples, on seaweed from shallow 
water; Rio de Janeiro ( D'Orb .). 
24. Lepralia reticulata , Macg., var. ophidiana. 
(PI. IX. fig. 1.) 
I have felt some doubts as to whether this should be consi¬ 
dered a species or variety, but upon comparison have come to 
the conclusion that the differences from reticidata are not very 
important. 
This may be the same as Flustra Legentilii , Aud.; but as 
there is only a figure it seems somewhat doubtful, and there- 
