258 ME. AETHUE W. WATEES ON 



as figured by Busk for tessellata vars. and by me for what I 

 consider a variety of P. Imperati, shows that there has not been 

 a true sinus. 



There is, however, another Betepora, the R. formosa, with a 

 sinus into which the operculum fits. This belongs to the B.-mo- 

 nilifera group, and besides having the moniUfera-foxm of the 

 ovicell, has so many other minute characters oi Betepora that it 

 would require a good deal of courage to remove this into another 

 genus, to say nothing of another suborder. 



To return to the B.-tessellata group, the only member in which 

 the sublabial pore is known is B. Solanderia, and here it is very 

 distinct ; while in B. Imperati, which so closely resembles it in 

 most particulars, none is found. It should, however, be repeated 

 that the existence of this pore characteristic of most Beteporce in 

 one member of the group may be taken as showing the close 

 relationship to the others. 



We next come to the consideration of the genus Beteporella, 

 Busk, of which two species were described in the ' Challenger ' 

 Heport, three by Ortmann * ; then there is B. Worsleyi, MacGr. f ; 

 and if we recogniz ed the genns, B. Solanderia would be placed 

 there also. The sole reason given for separation is that these 

 are non-reticulate ; but the three species of Ortmann approach so 

 nearly to known Beteports in shape of aperture, ovicell, and other 

 characters, that we are in doubt as to whether they should even 

 be separated specifically. In Betepora Solanderia the aperture, 

 ovicell, avicularia, &c. are truly Keteporidan, showing a very 

 close resemblance to B. Imperati in nearly all particulars ; and I 

 maintain that if we placed these two in difi'erent genera on account 

 of the one being reticulate and the other not, we should be going 

 back to the time when almost all genera were based uponzoarial 

 characters, and B. Solanderia, even if considered alone, would 

 give sufficient reason for dropping the genus Beteporella. 



We have seen that this species would by Busk be placed in 

 Beteporella, whereas Gregory would place it and the allied but 

 reticulated species under Schizoretepora. As before said, I have 

 not seen sufficient reason to remove it from Betepora ; and 

 certainly, if it was found advisable to make a new genus for the 



* "Japanische Bryozoenfauna," Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, toI. i. 1890, 

 p. 36. 



t " Descriptions of New or Little known Polyzoa," Trans. Eoy. Soc. Vict, 

 vol. xxiii. p. 185. 



