AND OTHER MEDITEREA]!^^EAN LOCALITIES. 3 



•of the walls of the zooecia near the commencement of the branch. 

 In the zooecia in which this breaking through of the wall of the 

 zooecial chamber has commenced, the polypide is seen unaffected, 

 partly above and partly below tbis incipient division (see PI. 1. 

 £gs. 11, 12). 



Menipea and Bugula are evidently very closely related ; for 

 a specimen from Florida, sent to me as '■''Bugula ? " by Miss 

 Jelly, has zooecia with an area, just as in Sugula, and a sessile 

 avicularium similar in shape and position to that occurring in 



B. avicularia, but the branches are articulated, with three zooecia 

 to an internode, as in Menipea. The jointing here occTi^s by 

 breaking through or thinning of the walls without any chamber 

 being formed ; the younger parts of the branch, however, show no 

 trace of articulation. 



The Cellulariidae are still in a state of confusion, and the 

 genera are based upon very unsatisfactory characters. Smitt, 

 recognizing this, united Cellularia, Scrupocellaria, and Menipea 

 as Cellularia ; but Busk and Hincks have not followed him in 

 this. The retention of the name Cellularia has long seemed most 

 undesirable, as it has been used in most various senses, and has 

 included forms which are now placed under widely separated 

 genera. Pallas, who gave the name Cellularia, had under it 

 Tuhucellaria, Cellaria, Notamia, Bugula, Scrupocellaria, Eucratea, 

 Aetea, and others. With the exception of Cellularia cuspidata and 



C. Peachii (both of which should be placed with Scrupocellaria), 

 the only other remaining species of Cellularia are from the 

 ' Challenger ; ' but I think if we turn to Mr. Busk's definition of 

 the genus in his Report we must consider it as an admission, on 

 his part, of inability to find characters upon which to base it ; for 

 " zoarium bi- or tri-serial with more than four cells in each inter- 

 node ; with or without a sessile avicularium behind the upper 

 and outer angle; with or without a pedunculate fornix," does 

 not contain a single definite statement. 



Then Hincks in his description says, " avicularia and vibracula 

 usually wanting;" but of six 'Challenger' species, five have 

 a,vicularia. However, since Hincks wrote this the presence or 

 absence of avicularia has been shown in many families to be 

 without value in generic classification. MacGrillivray writes, 

 " zooecia biserial . . . avicularia usually absent." 



As Busk in his ' Challenger ' Report neither figures nor men- 

 tions the articulation when describing his species, I do not feel 



1* 



