ON FOSSIL rOLYZOA. 



97 



does it stand in rojranl to tho level of the water in the nci>.'lil)oinin>j streams, or sea ? 

 •. AnaljiK'S of the water, if any. Does the water possess any niarl<ed iwculutrity 1 



9. Scctuni, wilii nature of tiie rock pass(.'d tlirou^rii, iiieliidiii^,' cover of I)rift, if any, 

 witli t/iicliiinK .' 9ti. In wliieh of tlie above nicies were siniri^'sof water inlercejited ? 

 10> Does till! cover of Drift over tlie roclt cnnttun »iir/(irf /•///■iuyn ! 11. If so, arc 

 t\\i:»v land /(/;//«(//( kejit entirely wC of tlie weli .' 12, Are any iar^'e/rt«/<« Icnown 

 tf) exist close to tlie well .' 13. Were any hriuc Hjiriiii,* passed tiiroii;;li in niulcin^ 

 the well / 1ft. Are tliere any »alt x/>rini/s in the neiKldx'urhood .' IB. Have any 

 wells or borin>;s been discontinued in your nei^litK>iirhood in «;onse(|iience of tho 

 water bein<j more or less hiachinh.' If so, please ^dvt; s»'ction in reply lu (luery No. U. 



10. Kindly j,'ive any further information you can. 



date at 

 sinking: 



nd alMJve 

 of shaft 



liameter ? 

 is their 



efore- and 



red after 

 the well 

 Quantity 

 quantity 

 ,r, and to 

 ordinary 

 And how 



Fifth (Old last Report of the Comiiuttee^ coasidlnrj of Dr. H. C. 

 SoRHY, F.H.S., and Mr. (1. K. Vink, appointed for the purpose of 

 reportuit/ on Fossil Polyzoa. Drawn up by Mr. Vink. 



Tin; classification wliidi lias been adopted in this Report is that 

 formulated by tho Rev. Thomas Kiiicks for his work on Jlritish ^fariue 

 Polyzoa, vliich seems to be in the main accepted by Mr. A. W. Waters 

 for his various papers since the publication of Hincks's work. 



The classification of D'Orbigny ' was based upon certain characters 

 which, as Mr. Hincks says, had one good feature at least : his family 

 groups had a wide range, and embraced many diversities in tho mode of 

 growth. ' His genera, on tho other hand, are often founded on utterly 

 trivial features, and have been multiplied indefinitely to represent every 

 insignificant variation of habit.' Mr. Waters, in his pajier on tho 

 ' Bryuzoa from the Pliocene of Bruccoli,' says that tho classification was 

 based upon many characters by D'Orbigny, without his ' understanding 

 their zoological signification, and the consequence was that some forms 

 could actually belong to several genera .... D'Orbigny attached much 

 greater importance to the form of tho cell than to the mode ot aggregate 

 growth, and in some cases signified the Ibrm of a colony by an allix, so 

 that there was Eschara and .Utpt-ei-cJiara, the first erect and the second 

 incrusting.' His knowledge, however, ' of Polyzoan form is perhaps 

 unsurpassed, and by his clear dingnosis and splendid plates ho has given 

 us a lew revelation of the structuiul variety and beauty of the class."'' 



' We owe to Professor Smitt the first serious attempt to substitute a 

 natura. system for the purely artificial arrangement hitlierto in use. . . . 

 He has aimed at a genealogical classification, starting with the proposition 

 that the variations of species follow the line of their development, and 

 may be in a great measure explained by it.' In dealing, however, with 

 this question Mr. Hincks points out how diflicult to tho mere systematist 

 tho attempt to classify upon genealogical principles would be — ' if it 

 should ever be feasible' — and if this would bo dillicult in dealing with 

 living, the difficulties would be innumerable in dealing with fossil species. 

 In spite of this, then, there is another important fjature in Pi-ofessor 



Smitt's system that is far more practicable ' the place 



which he assigns to the Zuoecium in the construction of families and 

 genera. The mere mode of growth he treats as a perfectly subordinate 

 character, and bases his divisions chiefly on the essential element of the 

 structure of the cell. In practice, this principle applies chiefly to the 



' Pal. Franq. Ter. Crvt. vol. v. * Hincks, <»/;. c'U. p. cxx. 



1884. H 



