ON RECENT POLYZOA. 481 
Report of the Committee, consisting of Dr. H. C. Sorsy and Mr. 
_ G. R. VINE, appointed for the purpose of reporting on recent 
_ Polyzoa. Drawn wp by Mr. G. R. VINE. 
Report on Recent Marine Polyzoa ; Cheilostomata and Cyclostomata only. 
Part I. Inrropucrion. 
Iy the present Report I have been compelled to adopt a classification 
somewhat different from that which I followed in my Fifth Report on 
Fossil Polyzoa (1884). Since the first publication of the Report, Mr. 
orge Busk’s long-expected Challenger monograph (Cheilostomata) has 
peared, and as his scheme of classification differs from that of Mr. 
Hincks, both in the ‘ British Marine Polyzoa,’ and also in the ‘ Contribu- 
ions towards a General History of the Marine Polyzoa,’ I have thought 
t best to allow each author to speak for himself, rather than to try to 
harmonise or alter the text, except by the scheme adopted farther on. 
In his Introduction to the Challenger Report, Mr. Busk remarks, ‘ that 
Ithough many of the family groups may in some measure be regarded as 
essing natural alliances,’ others can only be considered as artificial, 
specially in the sub-division C, or Escuartna .. . . and as such they 
aust perhaps remain until we are better acquainted with the true signi- 
ficance of the minute parts or organs upon which the distinctive characters 
re in many cases founded . . . . Nevertheless, in order to place myself 
w as possible in accord with modern views, I have, in the heterogeneous 
lily EscHaripz more especially, adopted partially the nomenclature 
ed by Mr. Hincks and Professor Smitt; but in doing this I have 
d it impossible to avoid a certain amount of the confusion necessarily 
idental to an attempt to graft a new system upon an old one based on 
| different set of characters.’ 
It will be remembered that in the arrangement of his families and 
mera in the ‘ British Marine Polyzoa,’ and in his subsequent papers in the 
innals and Magazine of Natural History,’ Mr. Hincks sets a very high 
value on zocecial characters. Mr. Busk also, in the Challenger Report, 
ciates to a large extent this method in dealing with special groups ; 
same time he says we are not ‘in a position fully to appreciate the 
ive value of the zvwcial as compared with the zoarial characters . . . 
individuality of the zoarium as a continuous whole or entity having 
been too much overlooked in the almost exclusive consideration of its 
mponent parts or segments.’ 
In the following ‘ Scheme of Classification ’ all the family names and 
visions are the same as those used by Mr. Busk, with the exception of 
nily VII. Notamiide, which was founded by Mr. Hincks for the place- 
ment of a very peculiar polyzoon. There are also parts of the families 
Forinids and Myriozoide stil unaccounted for in the arrangement adopted. 
ese I treat of separately, out of deference to Mr. Hincks and others who 
e followed his arrangement, formulated for his work on British Marine 
II 
