ON FOSSIL POLYZOA. 181 
evident that types like these cannot be placed in existing suborders 
without doing violence to the original and generally accepted diagnosis 
of Busk, Smitt, and Hincks. 
To prevent confusion and to meet the difficulty, I have founded 
a new suborder, which, following the example of Mr. Busk, is framed 
with distinct reference to the cell-mouth. We cannot afford to abandon 
our hold upon the two divisions so familiar to students of Recent 
Polyzoa; but in a synopsis of recent and fossil species and genera it 
is essential that every feature should be accurately described. 
Since a joint paper of mine and Mr. Shrubsole’s was read before the 
Geological Society,' an abstract of which was printed in the Proceedings 
of the Society, a valuable memoir of the American Paleozoic Bryozoa 
has been published by E. O. Ulrich? in the ‘Journal of the Cincinnati 
Society of Natural History.’ In this contribution a new suborder is 
proposed for the purpose of including groups some of which cannot 
possibly, for reasons presently to be explained, be included in this Report 
of Fossil Polyzoa. Mr. Ulrich says that his suborder Trepostomata ‘is 
proposed for the reception of the majority of the Paleozoic and many of 
the more recent Bryozoa. The principal distinguishing features are— 
(1) thatthe zoariwm is composed of slender fasciculate tubes, which do not 
(as in the case of the Cyclostomata) gradually enlarge as they approach 
the surface, but remain throughout nearly of the same diameter; and 
(2), that, at a certain point in the course of the tubes to the surface, they 
bend outward more or less abruptly, and change in character. Besides 
the following Paleozoic families, the Cerioporide should be referred to 
the Trepostomata.’ # 
The Paleozoic families included in this new suborder are Ptilo- 
dictyonide, Zittel emend. Ulrich; Stictoporide, Ulrich; Monticuliporide, 
Nicholson ; Fistuloporidw, Ulrich ; and Ceramoporide, Ulrich. It is not 
now with me a question of priority, but a question of fitness. Accepting 
the diagnosis of Mr. Ulrich, which, for the things he includes in the new 
suborder, is very good, I ask, who that knows anything of recent Bryo- 
zoa or Polyzoa would be inclined to adopt the Monticuliporide as defined 
and limited by Professor Nicholson,* or even by Mr. Ulrich, as Polyzoa ? 
As to the Cerioporide, if Busk’s family is meant, only one genus in that 
family, Stellipora, could be placed, provisionally, in the suborder as defined 
by Mr. Ulrich. I have not the least wish to cast the slightest disparage- 
ment upon this piece of really good work, but having been forced to 
dissent from the classification of the Bryozoa of Mr. Ulrich, I will now 
give my reasons for doing so. 
In a former admirable Report published by the British Association,> 
there is one entitled the ‘Third Report on British Fossil Corals,’ by 
Professor Duncan. At p. 128 the author says: ‘Jules Haime, when 
investigating the Oolitic Polyzoa, classified forms without septa and 
with tabule, like Cheetetes or Monticulipora, as Polyzoa, and the beautiful 
Stellipore were especially included. 
‘Now the question arises, are there any recent Polyzoa, whose soft 
parts have been examined, that have tabule? From our knowledge of 
the recent Polyzoa, it is unsafe to answer this in the affirmative. There 
is a fresh-water species which is said to have tabule, but the assertion 
' June 21, 1882. 2 October 1882. 3 Op. cit. p. 151, 
* Vide the genus Montieulipora. 
* Reports, 1871, pp. 116-137. By P. Martin Duncan, F.R.S., F.G.S. 
