332 W. M. Bale: 



not think, howeTer, that it is the practice of zoologists to reject 

 a proposed genus or sub-genus merely because a formal diagnosis is 

 Avanting, when, as in this instance, a full description is supplied. 

 The case is exactly parallel with that of Ecfopleura, which also was 

 established by Agassiz without a formal diagnosis. AUman com- 

 plained that Agassiz had not definitely stated tlie points on which 

 he founded the genus, but nevertheless, considering it valid, he 

 unhesitatingly accepted Agassiz' name for it. Both Professor 

 Nutting and Dr. Stechow agreed that fJucojytlla should be can- 

 celled in favour of Orthopyxis. 



The fact, cited by Fraser, that Hincks'did not accept Agassiz' 

 name, does not bear upon the question. Hi neks did not accej^t the 

 genus itself as distinct from CamjJaJiidaria ; had lie done so it is 

 not conceivable that he would have rejected the name. I cannot 

 agree with Fraser 's statement that we *' do not know, and never 

 can know, that Agassiz had any such characters [as those of 

 Eucopella] in mind wlien he applied the subgeneric name Orthopyxis 

 to his species poterium.^^ Agassiz states expressly that he finds 

 nothing in the trophosome to distinguish Orfhopifxh from other 

 Campanularians; we know, therefore, that his separation of it 

 depends solely on the peculiar structure of the reproductive zooid, 

 which is precisely the character on which EucopeUa was established. 



8ACCULINA, n. gen. 



n. gen. Bale., Proc. Hoy. Soc. Vict., vi. (N.S.), 



1893, p. 96. 

 ITibiana, Lamarck, in part. An. s. Vert., ii., 1816. p. 149. 



Hydrophyton an erect tube of irregular form; zooids produced 

 from short tubular processes, wdiich are borne on inflated areas on 

 all sides of the hydrocaulus. Hydranths and gonozooids unknown. 



The single species for which this genus is established, though so 

 imperfectly known that we are quite in the dark as to its affinities, 

 is readily identifiable, and as I have already published an account 

 of it, but without name, and as it cannot be assigned to any known 

 genus, I now propose for it the name Sarculifia. This name is 

 borrowed from Lamarck, who states that he at first intended apply- 

 ing it to the zoophyte (apparently very closely alliedi to tlie present 

 species), for wliicli he ultimately decided upon the name Tihia/na 

 ramosa. 



Full particulars will be found under tlie specific description. 



