A. W. WATERS—REPORT ON THE BRYOZOA. 125 
Haswett, W. A.—“On some Polyzoa from the Queensland Coast.” 
Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales, vol. v. p. 33-44. 1881. 
Hinoxs, T.—‘“ Polyzoa from India.” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, vol. xiii. 
p- 356. 1884. | 
Busk, G.—Report on Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Challenger,’ vol. x. pt. xxx. 
Cheilostomata, 1884 ; do. Cyclostomata, &. 1886. 
Hincxs, T.—“ Polyzoa and Hydroida of the Mergui Archipelago.” Journ. 
Linn. Soc., Zool. vol. xxi. pp. 121-135, pl. 12. 1887. 
Kirkpatrick, R.—“ Polyzoa of Mauritius.” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, 
VOls tps a2.) a8So, 
KirkPaTRICK, R.—“ Hydrozoa and Polyzoa .... in the China Sea.” 
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, vol. v. 1890. 
KrrKeatrick, R.——* Hydroida and Polyzoa (Torres Straits).” Proc. Roy. 
Dublin Soe. n. s. vol. vi. 1890. 
Puiurprs, EH. G.—“Report on Polyzoa collected by Dr. Willey.” 
Willey’s Zool. Results, pt. iv. p. 439. 1899. 
THorNneLy, L. R.—“ On the Polyzoa.” Herdman, Rep. on Pearl Oyster 
Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar. This is shortly referred to in 
this paper as “ Manaar.” 1905. 
THorNELY, L. R.——‘* Rep. on the Marine Polyzoa.” Ree. of the Indian 
Museum, vol. i. pt. 8, no. 18. 1907. 
With regard to Savigny’s figures, there is no description. However, the 
Zoological Congress has decided that to obtain priority the species must have 
been CLEARLY AND SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED ; but figures alone have been 
accepted as sufficient, and an example somewhat similar to that of Savigny’s 
is given of Du Clos publishing figures of Colwmbella, and his names being 
accepted, although there was no textual description. 
If we take such a case as Catenaria Lafontii, Aud., where the figure makes 
it as easy to recognise the species as if a slide had been attached, then with 
such a figure before us any doubt as to our knowing the species, or 
suggesting another name, would be simply pedantry. 
Untortunately, matters are not always so simple, and the rule just men- 
tioned, which in one form or another occurs in all papers on nomenclature, 
is frequently forgotten by those who are urging the revival of old names of 
imperfectly described genera and species. 
I have, as in previous papers, retained established generic names, even 
when recognising that changes in classification will shortly have to be made. 
As in all my recent papers, I give the number of tentacles where there has 
been satisfactory material to cut. This is not likely to be one of the most 
useful characters in classification, but it certainly is a character which should 
be recorded ; and we are now seeing that in many genera there is always 
approximately the same number, so that a great variation from the normal 
10* 
