BRYOZOA FROM AUSTRALIA. 681 
it does of the zocecial tubes placed round an imaginary axis, each 
row having the openings at equal distances with the regularity 
of vegetative repetition, occurs widely from the Paleozoic to these 
Australian beds. 
For the same reasons we cannot feel as sure that similar specimens 
from widely separated strata are identical, since there may have 
been differences in the organic structures which have left no record, 
and therefore there is more uncertainty than with the Chilostomata, 
because the correlation of a number of characters is a justification 
for considering the species identical. On the other hand I consider 
that so long as no difference is discoverable, the name already adopted 
must be used, however great the interval in space or time may be 
between the two. ‘This may seem an unnecessary remark, for with 
shells and other fossils it is generally recognized; but the contrary 
mode of proceeding has occurred frequently with authorities on the 
Bryozoa; forinstance, Ulrich names a fossil Mrtoclema cinctosa (a new 
genus and species), because no Entalophoride are ‘“ known to occur 
in older strata than Jurassic.” On page 685, I refer to this as 
apparently not differing from the European Chalk fossils. Again 
Dr. Fischer (in Bry. Echin. et Foram. p. 27) protests vigorously 
against giving the same name to specimens from different latitudes, 
and still more if from Secondary or Tertiary deposits. This he 
considers dangerous, and that we should doubt the perfection of 
our means of investigation. 
The results, however, obtained by the leans workers during 
the last ten years have shown what an extremely surprising wide 
distribution many of the common and highly developed Chilostomata 
have; and to me it seems that to give two names to what we cannot 
distinguish because one is European and the other Australian, or 
because one is of Tertiary age and the other of Secondary, is only 
hiding our want of knowledge behind a name. Certainly one of the 
reasons that make d’Orbigny’s ‘ Paléontologie Francaise’ so difficult 
to use is, that however much the fossil Bryozoa might correspond, 
yet, if from different strata, they were almost sure to receive two 
christenings. 
In the fossils now described many are found to have a wide range, 
and this has already partly been dealt with ; but another factor lies 
in the fact that the genera of Cyclostomata to be mentioned are, 
apparently, mostly not shallow-water forms, whereas many of the 
Chilostomata no doubt lived at a less depth. With the exception 
of occasional Crisiw, Tubulipore, and Stomatopore, I did not find 
any Cyclostomata in the Bay of Naples in shallow water; and it 
seems that most of this suborder are found in comparatively deep 
water. This may arise to a large extent from the difference in 
structure, as probably the greater protection given by the horny 
operculum makes the Chilostomata more able to live in the shal- 
lower, and consequently more disturbed and less pure water; and 
any fauna from a deep zone is likely to be more persistent than one 
nearer the surface. 
The various collections furnish 34 species, of which 12 at least 
