488 REPORT—1885. 
As to the zocecia of the Cyclostomata it is not necessary to make any 
lengthy remarks here. In treating of this division of my subject, I 
have given very full particulars in my fourth and fifth reports, and I 
must refer the student to these for special details, and in that division of 
my subject in the present report—Cyclostomatous Polyzoa—I have given 
additional particulars. These for the presert must suffice, until I have 
completed certain investigations into the structural peculiarities of the 
zocecia in Paleozoic Polyzoa. There are, however, certain peculiarities 
connected with the study of the Ctenostomatons cell and its stoloniferous 
processes that may merit some consideration at least. But these details 
have been so ably worked out by Mr. Hincks in his ‘ History of British 
Marine Polyzoa,’ especially in the description of species, that I refer the 
student without the least hesitation to the work itself, especially so as I 
am not able to touch upon the Ctenostomata in this report. 
II. Zoarium. 
T cannot blame Mr. Hincks for his adoption of zocecial, in preference 
to zoarial, characters, as a basis of generic distinction. Still at the same 
time, as Mr. Busk asserts in the passage already quoted from the Challen- 
ger Report, ‘ it would be wise to take, at times, into consideration some of 
the zoarial features, modes of growth, and peculiarities of development 
in the zoarium, not as a basis of classification, but as a means of arriving © 
at some conclusion that would help us to understand the close, or remote, _ 
relationship of the Paleozoic with Recent Polyzoa.’ This study, how- 
ever, must be carried out with Cyclostomatous rather than with Cheilo- 
stomatous groups, for I know of no form of polyzoa in the older rocks that — 
would afford us true links of relationship with the latter recent group, or 
even with the modified zoarial Cheilostomatous structures of the Mesozoic 
age. Well-developed Cheilostomata are abundant in the Cretaceous 
rocks, both of this and other countries, and the peculiarities of growth 
may have been, at times, too much relied upon by authors. On this point 
T cannot help quoting a passage from the first of the series of papers on 
Australian Bryozoa by Mr. Waters. 
‘Probably no naturalist at all thoroughly acquainted with the Bryozoa 
will again attempt to sustain such genera as the old Lepralia and Eschara; 
but it may be well to examine carefully the growth of the Bryozoa before 
we entirely reject the form of the colony as of classificatory value ; for in 
many cases it may be shown in this way from which part of a zocecium the 
following zocecium grows. The mode of growth of Lepralia and Eschara 
indicate no structural difference, for the young zocecia in both grew out 
from the same part of the parent cells, and Hschara was only formed of 
Lepralia cells, back to back, often very slightly attached. . . . The form 
of the aperture must be the first consideration; but especially among 
fossils we must carefully notice how they grow.’ (Quart. Jour. Geo. Soc., 
vol. xxxvii. p. 311). 
III. Tue Poryprpe. 
Of the Polypide it seems to be almost folly to speak in a report like 
the present one, as I have had to deal more particularly with the homes 
of the animal, rather than with the animal itself. Still at the same time 
I cannot allow the report to pass from my hands without making some 
reference to the polypide, for no very clear idea of the beauty of the zocecia 
