and Schizoporella simplex, D’Orbigny and Johnston. 217 
more or less hyaline, almost smooth or very finely and sparsely 
punctated; the zocecia are convex, nearly as broad as long, 
separated by rather deep depressions, the sutures being thin 
lines often slightly raised. In the type specimen I can find 
no distinct areolations, such as those mentioned by Mr. Mac- 
Gillivray, around the margins of the old cells, but there are 
often faintly marked radiating lines ; two short lateral spines 
are almost constantly present on the aperture, three or four 
longer ones being on the young zocecia. 
On comparing this more complete description of the species 
with the description and figures of Escharina simplex, D’Orb., 
I think it must be considered that the two species are 
quite distinct. In this Schizoporella (Escharina) simplex, 
D’Orb., attention must be called to the rounded lateral angles 
of the mouth producing an oval shape transversely, to the 
rather deep rounded sinus of the lower lip, to the complete 
absence of spines, to the numerous and distinct punctures on 
the surface of the zocecium, and more especially to the nature 
of the ‘ tubercule’”’ below the mouth on which the pore is 
situated—this “ tubercule”’ being present as a rounded pro- 
tuberance of the wall, seen, in the lateral view that D’Orbigny 
gives in fig. 8, as being scarcely raised above the general sur- 
face of the zocecial wall, whereas in Schizoporella Ridleyt, 
MacG., this projection forms a comparatively immense 
rostrum. 
Even making allowance for the probable incompleteness of 
D’Orbigny’s description and figure, and for a possibly great 
variability in the species, it does not seem to me that differ- 
ences such as those mentioned taken together can be safely 
regarded as being within the limits of specitic variation ; and 
hence it seems that the two species must be considered 
distinct. 
In any case, however, Schizoporella (Escharina) simplex, 
D’Orb., seems to be sufficiently diagnosed to be recognized ; 
and as, I believe, it claims priority over Schizoporella sim- 
plex, Johnston, this latter name must give way. D’Or- 
bigny’s species bears the date 1839 against it, and is printed 
in Part 4, vol. v. of the ‘ Voy. dans Amér. Mérid.,’ which bears 
the date of publication 1839-46. Dr. Johnston’s species was 
published in the second edition of the ‘ Zoophytes’ in 1847. 
For this form described by Dr. Johnston, which is thus 
destitute of a name, I propose that of the distinguished author, 
so that the species may be known as Schizoporella (Lepralia) 
Johnston. 
Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 5. Vol. xiii. 15 
