THE BORING AT RICHMOND, SURREY. 785 
thus) of the Chilostomata originated in early Jurassic times. The 
Richmond series of Prof. Judd, and the less remarkable series pro- 
cured from the boring for water in connexion with Meux’s Brewery, 
referred to by Mr. C. Moore, of Bath *, have enabled me to study 
and compare the Polyzoa from two horizons, both of which are 
Jurassic. Mr. Moore’s collection of specific forms, however, is not 
so well preserved as the Richmond series, but still I have been able 
to arrive at a partial conclusion respecting their age; although I do 
not consider my evidence on this point so conclusive or satisfactory 
as on the Richmond forms. Mr. Moore believed that his material 
was derived from Neocomian rocks. I cannot accept this opinion, 
judging from the Polyzoa alone. The Stomatopora dichotoma 
(1/34) is the same as the form described in this paper; the Diasto- 
pora diluviana (1/36) is the same as the Great-Oolite form; so also 
is the D. microstoma (1/27); the Idmonea triquetra (slide 1/27) is 
more robust, but it is not related to any Neocomian Jdmonea known 
to me; and the EHntalophora (1/31) is closely related to some of the 
more delicate forms of EL. rechmondiensis of this paper, while Terebel- 
larva ? ncrescens and Lichenopora (in bottle 1/36) are the same as 
species found in the Bradford Clay and Cornbrash. There is, how- 
ever, one fragment (1/33) in Mr. Moore’s collection that I have 
never, as yet, met with elsewhere. This appears to be a minute 
portion of one of the bundles of Masciculipora Waltoni, Haime. 
The apical cell-openings are large, circular, and surrounded by 
peristomial ridges. These are separated from neighbouring cells by 
a very delicate interspace. This species Haime gives, on the autho- 
rity of Mr. Walton, from the Great Oolite, Hampton Cliff. There 
are a few forms (Hetcropora, sp.) which seem to be related to 
Neocomian species. 
This closer study of Lepralia- and Hschara-like forms which 
Mr. Longe compares with the old Hschara folcacea of authors, has 
proved to me how insufficient mere growth and outline are in deciding 
the question as to the zoological position of a group. It may be 
that the Terebellaria increscens now described belongs rather to the 
Chilostomatous than to the Cyclostomatous group, but the peculiar 
shape of the occia of this species seems to point in the opposite 
directiony. It is impossible to dogmatize on moot points of structure 
like this. It belongs to us to lay the foundation in good honest 
work; it remains for future systematists to say where or how groups 
shall be placed. 
* Tam indebted to Prof. Judd for obtaining for me an examination of this 
series. The specimens are the property of the Bath Museum. 
t+ One of my principal reasons for refusing to believe that these Eschara- and 
Lepralia-like cells are ‘‘closely” related to the Chilostomata is this :—When- 
ever I make a section of a cell of any of the forms from the Jurassic rocks, I 
invariably find that the cell is tubular, in spite of its peculiar external shape. 
Whenever we are dealing with a true Chilostomatous type, whether from the 
Cretaceous or Cainozoic rocks, or recent, no indication of a tube is present, 
at least so far as I am acquainted with sections. There is, however, in 
the Jurassic Terebellaria increscens a large development of the distal part of 
the cell at the expense of the proximal, and the thinner the incrustation the 
broader will be the superficial area of the cell. 
