m 



152 



iiEroKT — 1884. 



I 



i 



strncturo, but upon oxtcnml form only. Tiien, again, t!ic form aiiu habit 

 of an individual typo served as a pretext for founding new genera and 

 new s])e('ies, without, in nr.my cases, tho least regard to structural 

 peculiarities. I do not put tli! ; down as a rcpi'oach, but rather as one of 

 tho primary reasons wli}- these tiinc-honouri'd naturalists are disregarded 

 by younger workers. For myself, I have no desire to ignore the lielp of 

 eai'ly investigators, and I wish particularly, in this division of my lleport, 

 to give as full a history of the grouping of Fossil Polyzoa, together with 

 as full an account of the species, as possible. I do this in tho interest of 

 two different classes of workers. In the first place, I desire to give — 

 beginning with Goldfuss — the PakTontological history of the Poly/.oa, 

 ranging from the Cretaceous beds to the liighest beds of tho Tertiary ; 

 and, in the second, to place in the hands of fellow students a full histoiy 

 of species described by the successive workers also from the time of 

 Goldfuss to the present, giving, as far as I am able, the modern elassifi- 

 catory name. This part of niy Ke)H)it may appear, to all but the two 

 sets of workers named above, a tedious piece of labour. Bat when it is 

 remembered that many of the works, papers, or monographs of the earlier 

 workers are at tho present day inaccessible — or almost inaccessible except 

 to those who reside in the viciuity of large liliraries — the tediousness will 

 bo more apj)arent than real. I think it will be admitted by all, that the 

 whole of the lists of s])ecies of Polyzoa must bo accepted by the 

 Palaeontologist — unless by carefull}' working ovc-r the old work many of 

 the early names are reduced to syiumyms. In many cases I know that 

 this is their ultimate destiny. Until new students, then, are conttmt to 

 work along the lines fully elaborated — from the consecutive labours of 

 the Rev. Thomas liiucks and ]\lr. A. W. Wateis in the earlier part of 

 the present Report — confused and ill-digested compilation must follow. 

 I have been asked, over and over again, why not woik alonyf tlie lines 

 laid down by U"Orbi.<';uy in his grou[)ing of tlie Poly/oa ; or if not, give 

 ray reasons for neglecting him. I have no wish to do either. So far as 

 D'Orbigny gave to us original work 1 am proud, and even glad, to follow 

 him in his groupings ; hut I do not believe liiat a dozen men exist who 

 can ado])t his method with any satisfaction to themselves. Professor 

 Roemer adopted D'Orbigny's cliissiiieation for iiis work on tho Norddeutsch 

 Bryozoa ; and so have the Messi's. Gahb and Horn for their monogra[)h 

 of the Secondary and Tertiary Polyzoa of Xorth America ; and a pretty 

 full digest of D'Orbigny's system is given in ^l. Pictet's woi'k on 

 Palajontology, and also a goodly number of ligures to illustrate the numy 

 divisions. 



In ouG of Professor Smltt's elaborate papers — ' Floridan and Scan- 

 dinavian Bryozoa' -the author has given identifications and probable 

 relationships of his own with sonu; of D'Orbigny's genera and species, 

 and I have availed myself of Smitt's valuable lists for the .sake of syno- 

 nymy alone. With regard to Ilagenow, Reuss, !Manzoni, Bask, Waters, 

 and some few others, I think that no two opinions can exist as to the 

 value of their special labours, and the very full list given from these 

 authors will, I think, be fully ap])reciated by the working student at 

 least. It may be well now to explain the principle by which I have been 

 guided in compiling this part of my Report. In every case in dealing 

 with an author's work T have not disturbed his grouping or arrangement 

 — except where it was necessary to break up the list for the purpose of 

 giving a stratigraphical arrangement. In an opposite column I have 



