A. W. WATERS—REPORT ON THE BRYOZOA. 131 
genus Caloporella*, afterwards changed to Vittaticella, thus unfortunately 
removing the type of Catenaria—or, as generally known, Catenicella—from the 
genus Catenicella. However, it would now cause great confusion to change 
the name of Catenicella, especially as Catenaria has been differently defined. 
Loc. Mediterranean (Blainville) ; Red Sea and Java (d Orbigny). Among 
coral from a reef, Khor Dongola (19) ; and Nersa Makdah, 5 fath. (12), 
collected by Crossland. 
CaTENARTA Larontit (Audouin § Savigny). 
For synonyms see Miss Jelly’s Catalogue under Lucratea Lafontu, and add :— 
Catenaria Lafontii, Harmer, “ Morph. Cheil.,” Q. Journ. Micr. Se. vol. xlvi. (1902) p. 305, 
pl. 17. fig. 49; Thornely, “‘ Manaar,” p. 108 (1905); id. Records of Indian Museum, vol. i. 
p- 8, no. 13 (1907) p. 180. 
Eucratea Lafontit, Calvet, “ Bry. Mar. de Cette,” Tr. Tae de Zool. de ’Univ. de Mont- 
pellier, 2nd ser. Mém. 11, p. 18 (1902); “ Bry. Mar. de Corse,” op. cit. Mém. 12, p. 6 (1902). 
It is very difficult to decide what the generic name should be, as one 
author after another has made a series of mistakes about the genus. 
It was figured by Savigny, and the generic name on the plate was pre- 
sumably Catenaires, as we must certainly conclude that it was meant to refer 
to C. Contei, Aud., and C. Lafontii; but C. Contet was figure 1, and therefore 
should be the type. Now this is typical Catenicellide, though for this species 
(Contei) Blainville modified the name to Catenicella, which according to our 
present ideas was quite unallowable, and what we now call Catenicelia should 
have been Catenaria. In the text Audouin placed Lafonti under Hucratea, 
and this seemed right at the time, but as the branching is very different, and 
the ovicells do not at all correspond, it now seems advisable to retain the two 
genera, 
Then Busk made a new genus Alysidiwm for it, but later in the ‘ Challenger ’ 
Report he took Lafontii as the type of Catenaria, though, as we have seen, 
Contei should have been the type. D’Orbigny had, however, described the 
genus Catenaria, so that if it is retained it is Catenaria of d’Orbigny ; we 
have here, however, the difficulty that he placed in it C. Lafontu, C. chelata, 
Lamx., and C. ambigua, VOrb., whereas he ought to have retained Hucratea 
if chelata is included. 
Busk described several new species as Catenaria, and Harmer and Thornely 
have followed him in placing Lafontii under Catenaria; and though it 
certainly never ought to have been placed under Catenaria it seems to be 
best to leave it here. 
The ovicell of Catenaria diaphana, Busk, is somewhat similar and the 
thrown-back open ovicell must be considered as a generic character. 
* The name was subsequently changed by MacGillivray, as there was already a genus 
Calloporella, see Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict. n. s. vol. xiii. p. 210 (1901). 
