BULLETIN OF THE 
IV. AFFINITIES or URNATELLA. 
From the frequent opportunity that I have had successfully to com- 
pare the organs of Urnatella, even in detail, with those of Pediceilina 
and, allied genera, there remains no doubt in my mind of its close rela- 
tionship to those forms. Arthropodaria, especially in its segmentation 
of the stem and the associated budding process, seems most closely to 
resemble Urnatella. In three points of importance, however, Urnatella 
differs from other Pedicellinid®, namely : (1) in the possession of a cloaca 
(and absence of a brood-sac ?) ; (2) in the presence of water or excretory 
canals in the stem and calyx, — which are so striking that they could 
hardly have been overlooked if they occurred in other Pedicellinide; 
and (3) in the absence of the stoloniferous type of budding. 
As for the last difference, however, I have tried to show that there is 
a stolon from which the individuals of the Urnatella stock arise, although 
it is small. Whether this rudimentary condition of the stolon is an 
ancestral or a degenerate character is doubtful; I have been inclined to 
consider it the latter. 
In regard to the first difference, I must point out that in the male of 
Arthropodaria there is a condition resembling that found in Urnatella, 
for in the former genus (Foettinger, ’87, Plate X. Fig. 8) the anus, vas 
deferens, and excretory tubule open near together. 
The second difference concerns a very important set of organs, and if 
they should be shown to be indeed absent in Arthropodaria Benedeni, it 
would lead us to conclude that in one respect at least, perhaps owing to 
physiological needs, Urnatella has retained a more ancestral condition 
than its near allies. 
V. AFFINITIES OF THE BRYOZOA. 
There are three prevailing views concerning the relationship of the 
Bryozoa to other groups. According to one view (most recently and 
ably defended by Ehlers) they find their nearest allies in the Gephyrea ; 
according to the second view, they have sprung from the lower worms, — 
from Rotifer-like ancestors, The third view (that of Hatschek) assumes 
that Ectoprocta and Endoprocta are in fact not closely related, but that 
the former should be placed near the Gephyrea, the latter close to tho 
Rotifera. 
The reasons for this difference of opinion are not far to seek. Those 
who have begun their studies with the Ectoprocta, particularly with 
