G. R. Vine—Carboniferous Polyzoa. 507 
1873. Carinella cellulifera, R. Etheridge, jun. 
1876. Goniocladia cellulifera, R. Etheridge, jun. 
This is a good typical genus and species, both well described. 
Generic and Specific Ch.—Polyzoarium composed: of angular, 
irregularly disposed anastomozing branches, strongly carinate on 
both aspects, but celluliferous only on one. No regular dissepiments ; 
the branches bifurcate and reunite with one another to form hexa- 
gonal, pentagonal, or polygonal fenestrules of most irregular form. 
On each side the keel of the poriferous aspect are three alternating 
lines of cell-apertures.! The genus and species, for there is only one, 
is well illustrated in the Grou. Mac. 1873. 
1849. Thamniscus, King, Permian Foss. 
1873. Mr. R. Etheridge, jun., indicates the possible existence of a 
species of this genus in our Scotch Carboniferous rocks. ‘The 
portions obtained are fragments of a robust, branching coralline, 
with a nearly circular section. .... The cells are very pustulose 
or wartlike, with prominent raised margins... .. The disposition 
of the cells and mode of branching is exceedingly like that seen in 
Thamniscus dubius, Schl... .. As the margins (of the cells) in the 
present form are decidedly raised and prominent, might it not 
probably be a species of T’hamniscus ? If it be a new species of 
Polypora, I would propose for it the specific designation of P. 
pustulata.? 
1875. The Messrs. Young of Glasgow, after recording the opinions 
of Mr. Etheridge,’ describe Thamniscus Rankini, Young and Young, 
inserting between the generic and specific names ‘“‘ Stem free, dicho- 
tomous, circular, about 34; inch in diameter, branches in one plane. 
.... Cells arranged in spirals. . . . . Cell-apertures circular when 
entire, oval when worn; lower lip prominent...... Non-cellu- 
liferous aspect finely granulated, faintly striate.” .... “The generic 
position of the fossil is uncertain. . . . Meanwhile, though strongly 
disposed to regard this fossil as a true Hornera, or a member of a 
closely allied genus, we think it safer to leave it in the Paleozoic 
genus.” In this the Messrs. Young are wise, but younger and less 
cautious observers, on the strength of the many peculiar affinities 
which this species has to Hornera, would have eagerly embraced 
this opportunity. I cannot, however, regard this species as a 
Palzeozoic Hornera, but I must candidly confess that it comes very 
near to the generic description accepted by Busk.* 
Glauconome, Munster, syn. Vincularia, Def. 1829. Glauconome, Gold- 
fuss, 1826. Revised by Lonsdale, 1839. G. disticha, Lonsdale, 
type of D’Orb.’s Penniretepora ; Acanthocladia, King, 1849. 
It is very doubtful whether this term can be used for other than 
Paleozoic Polyzoa. It was originally used by Munster for cylindri- 
1 Grou. Mac. 1878 and 1876. Expl. of Sheet 23, Scotch Survey, p. 101. 
2 Explanation of Sheet 23, Appendix, p. 102. 
8 Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., May, 1875, p. 335, pl. ix. dis. 
4 Marine Polyzoa, pt. iii. Cyclostomata, p. 16. 
