A. W. WATERS—REPORT ON THE BRYOZOA. 2AT 
Buskia socialis, Hincks. 8 tentacles ; a gizzard (Waters), This must be 
5) p) 5 5 
put in another genus, as it differs widely from B. nitens, Alder, and 
B. setigera, H. The zocecia are attached direct to the thick stem, 
whereas in B. setigera there is a rhizome. 
Cryptopolyzoon, Dendy. 10-14 tentacles; a gizzard with two grind- 
Ue OG) ? y Ba g 
stone teeth, entirely different to the gizzards of other genera. 
STOLONIFERA. 
There is a delicate creeping rhizome, which at intervals expands, and from 
these expansions the zocecia arise usually in pairs ; no gizzard. 
Flypophorella, Ehlers. 10-11 tentacles. Joyeux-Laffuie mentions as a 
character a gizzard, but does not refer further to it, and from Ehlers’s 
fuller description it certainly does not seem that there is a gizzard. 
Farella, Ehrenberg. 11-12 tentacles; no gizzard. 
Valkeria, Flem. 8 tentacles; no gizzard. 
Mimosella, Hincks. 8 tentacles ; no gizzard. 
Triticella, Dalzell *. 18-20 tentacles ; no gizzard (Hincks). 
Cylindrecium, Hincks. 10-20 tentacles ; no gizzard. 
Buskia setigera, Hincks. No gizzard. 
The following cannot at present be placed :—Angwinella, V. Ben.; 10 tenta- 
cles, no gizzard (#7.). Arachnidium, Hincks., is not this allied to Cylindracium ? 
Vietorella, Saville Kent, 12-14 tentacles. S. Kent said no gizzard, but 
Bousfield and Kraepelin state that they found one, though as the description 
hardly corresponds with the gizzard of other species sections are desirable. 
Loppens f has recently stated that there is no gizzard. Perhaps this should be 
put in a separate group with Paludicella. Arachnoidea, Moore, looks like 
Arachnidium.  Monastesia, Jullien, is perhaps Buskia.  Hislopia, Carter, 
is said by Carter f, Jullien §, and Annandale || to have 16 (?) tentacles, and a 
gizzard, which from the description is somewhat like that of Cryptopolyzoon, 
but further details are required. It is an encrusting species. Norodonia, 
Jullien: Annandale considers that this is Hislopia. 
* Hippuraria, Busk, has a delicate rhizome, from which groups of zocecia arise. In the 
only specimen (which is now in the British Museum) it is growing upon the stalk of a 
seaweed, and this was mistaken for the stem of Hippuraria. There is, therefore, now 
absolutely no reason for separating Hippuraria from Triticella. 
+ Loppens, K., “ Bry. d’eau douce,” Ann. de Biol. lacustre, vol. iii. (1908) p. 9. 
{ Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 3, vol. i. p. 169, pl. 7 (1858). 
§ “ Monog. des Bry. d’eau douce,” Bull. Soc. Zool. de France, vol. x. (1885) p. 95, fies. 248- 
250. 
|| Annandale, “ Affinities of Hislopia,’ Journ. Proc, As. Soc. Beng. n.s. vol. ii. n. 3, 
pp. 59-65. 
