510 MR. A. W. WATERS ON 



similar note. A long time ago I showed * that the C. pumi- 

 cosa as we have unrlerstood it had nothing whatever to do with 

 6", pamicosa L., as it does not in any way correspond with 

 Linnseus' description, besides which he refers to a figure by 

 Marsigli which probably is a figure of C. coronopus. I then 

 referred to it as C. pimiicosa Busk {non L.) and have continued 

 to do so. Fig. 7 may be a figure of C ramulosa Hincks, etc. 

 though called pumicosa by Linnseus ; there are, however, several 

 other species that it might represent. After this record of mis- 

 takes about two well known species, showing how little we can 

 know what the earlier writers meant, we should be allowed to 

 return to our senses, and use these long established specific 

 names for thoroughly described and well recognised species, 

 namely G. pumicosa Busk, C. ramtdosa Hincks, but if we retain 

 Cdlej)ora for ramvlosa the C. pumicosa Busk becomes OstJihnosia 

 Jullieu. This group was divided oft' in the same year by Jullien 

 as Osthimosia, and as Schisrnopora by MacGillivray, but it seems 

 that JuUien's name was published a few months the earlier. The 

 opercula of this group are all of the same type, with the opercular 

 a.ttachment some distance from the border of the operculum. 

 The group is left by Levinsen under GeUefora^ through mis- 

 understanding C. ramulosa. The ovicell of Osthimosia is, at any 

 rate, nearly always punctured. 



This leaves the Cellepora of Hincks divided into Holoporellidfe 

 (holostomatous), and the schizostomatous forms into Osthimosia 

 and Lagenipora. 



Loc. Prison Island, Zanzibar Channel, 8 fath. (505) ; Ras 

 Osowamembe, Zanzibar Channel, 10 fath. (504), collected by 

 Crossland. 



Lagenipora rota MacGillivray. 



Cellepora rota MacG. Trans. Roy. Soc. Yict. vol, xxi. p. 116 

 (11) pi. iii. fig. 6 (1885) ; Prod. Zool. Vict. dec. xv. p. 184, pi. 148. 

 fig. 3 (1887). 



Levinsen would call this Siniopelta, but it is what I have 

 previously put under Lagenipora^ as the position and character of 

 the ovicells of L. socialis Hincks seem to me to be the same as in 

 the group which Levinsen calls Siniopelta. As Levinsen has not 

 agreed with me, I have also, besides again examining the British 

 Museum specimens, through the kindness of Professor Hickson, 

 examined the specimens from Miss Jelly's collection in the 

 Victoria University Museum. Miss Jelly first found L. socialis 

 in Hastings, and presumably all known Hastings specimens were 

 collected by her. The Hastings specimens in the Victoria 

 Museum did not show the ovicell, but one so named by Miss Jelly, 

 from Guernsey, has some ovicells and also shows the spinous 

 processes well. 



The ovicell of the Guernsey specimen is situated on the wall 



* Waters, "Bryozoa of the Bay of Naples," Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, vol. iii. 

 p. 198 (1879). 



