la-, THE VOYAGE OF H. M.S. CHALLENGEE.. . 



3. Pushdopora, Blainville* ,- 



Pustulopora, Blainville (text), Man. d'Actin., p. 418, 1834; Milne-Edwards, Hagenow (nee 

 Geinitz), Eeuss, Michelin('!), Grube, Meneghini; Busk, Brit. Mus. Cat., pt. iii. p. 20, &c.; 

 Macgilliv., Proc. E. Soc. Vict., December 1880, p. 6. 



Pustulipora, Blainv. (index), Jolmston, Gray, Sars, JoUet. 



Tubulipora (pars), Coucb. 



Entalophora (pars), d'Orbigny {nee Lamouroux), Hincks, Brit. Mar. Polyz., p. 455 ; Smitt, 

 Florid. Bryoz., vol. i. p. 11 ; Stoliczka, Waters, &c. 



Character. — Zoarium erect, simple or branched, cylindrical ; branches irregular, com- 

 posed of tubular zooecia partially or wholly connate or immersed ; opening on all sides of 

 the branch, and disposed quincuncially or irregularly, sometimes in more .or less annular 

 or subspiral order. 



Although most recent writers, including such high authorities as Professor Smitt and 

 Mr. Hincks, have adopted the name Eritalophora for the genus here intended, I am 

 inclined, with the greatest deference, to prefer M. de Blainville's and M. Milne-Edwards' 

 name, for the reason that the species named Entalophora by Lamouroux appears to 

 me to differ in at least one most important respect, it may be said, from all the other 

 known Cyclostomata, and most certainly from all with which I am acquainted, either 

 recent or fossil, viz., in the appendages, as he terms them, being trumpet-shaped, or 

 gradually increasing in diameter as they increase in length. Whether this arises from an 

 error of observation on the part of Lamouroux or of his draughtsman, or is the true 

 condition, may perhaps admit of doubt ; with the exception of M. Michelin (Iconog., 

 pi. Ivi. fig. 4), whose figure very strongly resembles that of Lamouroux, no one seems to 

 have recorded any other form with trumpet-shaped tubes, and as even his figure does not 

 represent them as having that form, I am much inclined to assume that Lamouroux's speci- 

 men is unique in that respect, and if correctly figured and described, that it must on that 

 account alone be referred to a distinct generic tj^e from all other known Pustuloporidse, 

 and in fact, as above observed, from all other Cyclostomata. (May it not be a coralline ?). 



On the other hand, M. de Blainville's definition oi Pustulopora, as distinguished from 

 Lamouroux's Entalophora, is so clear and precise, and his genus has met with the 

 acceptance of M. Milne-Edwards, Hagenow, Eeuss, and numerous others, and in fact 

 may be said, until quite recently, to have been in full possession of the field, that I feel 

 no hesitation in retaining it for all forms with cylindrical tubes of the same diameter 

 throughout ; and in relegating those forms, if there really be any, with trumpet-shaped 

 tubes, to at least a distinct genus. 



With respect to the spelling of the name there can be no doubt that Pustulopora is 

 the correct way, Pustulipora being apparently merely a printer's error in the index to 

 the Manuel d'Actinologie. In the text {loc. cit.) M. de Blainville has it Pustulopora. 

 Mr. Macgillivray has passed over a simdar misprint {loc. cit.) the name being spelled 

 Pustulopera in the text and Pustulopora in the description of the plates. 



