FLOEIDAN BRYOZOA. 21 



Hagenow (Bryoz. Maastr. Kreideb., pag. 83), was named Siphonella. Their colour is 

 white, but, very prettily, the raised margins of the zooecia are bright yellowish-green, 

 probably a rest of the primary ectocyst. 



To the Biflustridan family the most typical species of the old genus Vincularia 

 are to be brought. I need only to refer to a comparison between Biflustra denticulata 

 and Vincularia ornata, Busk l ). Once, perhaps, they will turn out to be the same spe- 

 cies; or, at least, they hold the same near relation to each other, as that above re- 

 marked about Steginoporella elegans and Vincularia neozelanica. 



In the above described Membraniporella Agassizii, we have seen one of the most 

 evident connecting links between the Flustrine and Escharine types. Now, through the 

 development of various species, in the beginning of their colonies, the last named type 

 has shown its starting-point to be the same as that of the preceding type, viz. the 

 zooecia] form a ) at first, under the name of Täta, described by Van Beneden. And, 

 in its own typical constitution, after full development, the escharine zooecion will be to 

 reduce to the same component parts, as what we have seen in the preceding. Then, 

 if we compare the form, which I have described 3 ) as Escharipora nitido-punctata, with 

 the Membraniporella nitida, in the same time calling to inind the internal calcification 

 of the Micropöridce, the front side of the first named species will correspond with an 

 internal calcification in a zooecion of the same type as the latter 4 ). Thereby one will 

 understand, also, the constitution of the Steginoporidce, as described by D'Orbigny 5 ). 

 Then, the species of that family must be conjoined with the 



ESCHAR1PORID.E. 



From this family, once, in trying to follow D'Orbigny, I had separated the Po- 

 rinidce, characterized by their lunate or circular median pore, as well as by their semi- 

 circular aperture, which latter character, however, they had in common with the Eschari- 

 poridw. Afterwards, in seeing species, which, for other reasons, would not be separated from 

 the Escharipora?, though they were provided with that characteristical pore, I rejoined 

 these families. Now, the Floridan collection contains some forms, which make that 

 distinction yet more unteanable. 



1 ) Brit. Mus. Cat., Polyz., p. 96, tab. LXV, fig. 2; Quart. Journ. Micr. Se, n. ser., vol. I, p. 155, Zoo- 

 phytol., tab. XXXIV, fig. 4. 



2 ) Cfr. Busk, Quart. Journ. Micr. Se., vol. VIII, Zoophyt., tab. XXIV, fig. 1 (Porina Malusii); Smitt, Pl. 

 VI, fig. 126 (see below; Porina ciliata); Krit. Fört., Öfvers. Vet. Akad. Förh., 1867, Bih., pl. XXVI, fig. 

 98 (Lepralia spathulifera), figg. 109 — 111 (Porella leevis); pl. XXVII, fig. 167 (Discopora ventricosa); 

 Öfvers. 1871, pl. XXI, fig. 27 {Discopora emucronata), fig. 29 (Disc. stenostoma), fig. 31 (Disc. ventricosa). 



:! ) Öfvers. Vet. Akad. Förh., 1867, Bih., p. 49. 



4 ) Forruerly I corapared that front side, directly, with the spines of the Membraniporo', what now, I think, 

 must be corrected. 



ft ) Pol. Franc, Terr. Gret., vol. V, p, 497. 



