32 • MR. A. W. WATERS ON THE MARINK 



this appearance. Looking down on the tubes they are so much foreshortened 

 that it is impossible to give satisfactory figures, and this remark applies 

 also to the ooeciostomes of fig. 4. 



The discovery of this species, placed by Audouin in his genus Proboscina, 

 a name adopted for a genus by d'Orbigny and others, is most important, for 

 some authors, especially paleontologists, have considered that in the 

 StomatoporidEe, Stomatopora should be used for uniserial adnate forms, while 

 Proboscina would include multiserial adnate forms. Undoubtedly the name 

 Proboscina will have to be entirely dropped, and, while I think that 

 Stomatopora will have to include mnny forms which are more or less multi- 

 serial, and that some things described as Proboscina will fall into Tubulipora, 

 I am not prepared to state that all will find their places in these two genera ; 

 however, if a generic division is required for many now known as Proboscina 

 there is the genus Criserpia * of H. Milne Edwards in which these can find a 

 home f. Milne Edwards proposed to place all the known Cyclostomata in 

 the "family" Tubuliporidse, but we now see that many families as now 

 understood were included, though until we understand more about the most 

 important genus Stomatopora both as to its primary attachment and ovicells 

 we cannot speak with any certainty concerning the group in question. 



Miss Jelly and others have considered that Savigny's figures of Proboscina 

 Boryi and P. Lamourouxii represented the same species, but in this I cannot 

 agree, for in the figures the difference in size of the zooecia is very marked. 



Loc. Savigny's specimens were probably from the Red Sea or Mediter- 

 ranean ; St. Vincent Harbour, Cape Verde Islands, fO fath., collected by 

 Crossland. 



Tubolipora incrassata (Smitt), Waters. (Plate 3. fig. 7.) 



Proboscina incrassata, Smitt, " Krit. Fort. Sfver Skand. Hafs-Bry." Ofv. Kongl. Vetensk.- 

 Ak. Forh. 1866, pp. 402, 458, pi. 5. 



Tubulipora incrassata, Waters, "Bry. of the Bay of Naples," Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, 

 vol. iii. (1879) p. 272. 



? Proboscina Boryi, Aud., Descrip. de l'Egypte, Hist. Nat. p. 236, pi. 6. fig'. 4 (1826). 



* " Memoire sur les Crisies," &c, Ann. Sci. Nat. 2me ser., Zool. ix. (1838) pp. 193-238. The 

 importance of this paper has not always been fully appreciated, for here the Cyclostomata 

 were divided from the Cheilostomata, though under other names, and since then there has 

 been much elaboration. Audouin and Milne Edwards, ' in 1828, separated the Bryozoa as 

 " family" 4, meaning by this what we should now call a class. Although several zoologists 

 had, for many years, realized that a separation of zoophytes should be made, they were the 

 first to make it. To have shown not only that there was this class, but also to have realized 

 the large divisions of Cheilostomata and Cyclostomata shows what good pioneer work Milne 

 Edwards gave us. 



[ l Audouin et Milne Edwards, " Resume des recherches sur les animaux sans vertebres 

 faites aux iles Chausey," Ann. Sci. Nat. vol. xv. (1828) p. 18.] 



f Ann. Sci. Nat. vol. xv. (1828) p. 41. 



