152 BEroitx— 1884. 



structure, but upon external form only. Then, again, the form and liabit 

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

 new species, without, in many cases, the least regard to structural 

 peculiarities. I do not put tbis down as a reproach, but rather as one of 

 the primary reasons why these time-honoured naturalists are disregarded 

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

 early investigators, and I wish particularly, in this division of my Report, 

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

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

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

 beginning with Goldfuss — the Pala?ontological history of the Polyzoa, 

 ranging from the Cretaceous beds to the highest beds of the Tertiary ; 

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

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

 Goldfuss to the pi'esent, giving, as far as I am able, the modern classifi- 

 catory name. This part of ray Report may appear, to all but the two 

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

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

 workers are at the pi'esent day inaccessible — or almost inaccessible except 

 to those who reside in the vicinity of large libraries — the tedionsness will 

 be more apparent than real. I think it will be admitted by all, that the 

 whole of the lists of species of Polyzoa must be accepted by the 

 Palaeontologist — unless by carefully working over the old work many of 

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

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

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

 the Rev. Thomas Hincks and Mr. A. W. Waters — in the earlier part of 

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

 I have been asked, over and over again, why not work along 1 the lines 

 laid down by D'Orbigny in his grouping of the Polyzoa; or if not, give 

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

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

 him in his groupings ; but I do not believe that a dozen men exist who 

 can adopt his method with any satisfaction to themselves. Professor 

 Roemer adopted D'Orbigny's classification for his work on the Norddeutsch 

 Bryozoa ; and so have the Messrs. Gabb and Horn for their monograph 

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

 full digest of D'Orbigny's system is given in M. Pictet's work on 

 Palaeontology, and also a goodly number of figures to illustrate the many 

 divisions. 



In one of Professor Smitt's elaborate papers — ' Floridan and Scan- 

 dinavian Bryozoa' — the author has given identifications and probable 

 relationships of his own with some 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 Hagenow, Reuss, Manzoni, Busk, 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 appi'eciated 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 I 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 



