100 Rev. T. Hincks's Critical Notes 



the result of the junction, is not comparable with the solid 

 mucronate rising of the margin (itself an integral part of the 

 cell-wall) in the Mucronellce. I am perfectly justified there- 

 fore in not assigning a like systematic value to structures 

 which differ entirely in their origin and their relation to the 

 other elements of the zoceciumj and which have really nothing 

 essential in common. 



At the same time in the family Cribrilinidce I regard the 

 structure of the front-wall (or costate roof, as it may be 

 called, to distinguish it from the front-wall proper) as the 

 dominant character and much more significant than the orifice. 

 It is the record of the evolutional changes through which 

 the Membraniporine zooecium has passed in one of the family 

 lines, it tells the story of its gradual modification with a 

 completeness that leaves little to be desired, and enables us 

 to mark out a systematic group which is absolutely natural. 

 But though we assign this rank to the unique protective 

 covering of the Cribriline cell, it by no means follows that 

 the ordinary Cheilostomatous front-wall is universally entitled 

 to this distinction. The structure which replaces the latter 

 amongst the Cribrilinidce, as we have seen, is aberrant and 

 exceptional and has a distinct evolutional meaning. 



It remains to be proved that the solid calcareous covering 

 which we meet with in other groups has any special morpho- 

 logical value or presents characters which are available for 

 the purposes of the systematise Dr. Jullien has certainly not 

 supplied any evidence so far in support of his new view to 

 which much weight can be attached. In fact his case rests 

 mainly on the assumption (baseless, as I have just shown) 

 that my treatment of the Cribrilinidce is virtually a renun- 

 ciation of the principles which I have hitherto maintained. 

 If we add to this his contention (' Les Costulidees/ p. 3) that 

 the fact of his having observed in different species monstrous 

 cells destitute of orifice but with " a superb front-wall/' is a 

 proof of his doctrine " que l'orifice est moins caracteristique 

 que la paroi frontale," we have the whole case. This is cer- 

 tainly to base the primacy of the front-wall amongst systematic 

 characters on a very slender foundation, and will hardly 

 warrant such confident statements as the following : — " Des 

 differents faits que nous venous d'&ioncer il resulte que la 

 forme de l'orifice est un caractere d'une valeur inferieure, 

 domine" par celui qu'on peut tirer de la paroi frontale, et que 

 les genres Schizoj)orella, Lepralia, Mucronella etablis par Th. 

 Hincks doivent etre rejete*s comme mal caract6ris£s " * (' Les 



* After this condemnation it is somewhat startling to read the follow- 

 ing passage in the Cape-Horn Report : — " Genre Lepralia, Th. Hincks 



