FLORIDAX BRYOZOA. 11 



divergent series, developed from the same type. It is for the pala?ontologist further 

 to follow this divergence, whereby the composition of the more coinplex types will be 

 explained, and the true grounds Avill be given for limiting the families 1 ). Here, in the 

 lowest stages of that systematical evolution, I will only point to the resemblance be- 

 tween the zooeeia of a Proboscina and an Entalophora 2 ). 



Of the last-named genus, Pourtales sent me two species, the one of wbich I do'nt 

 venture with certainty to identify with any known European form. But in the Mono- 

 graph of the fossil polyzoa of the seeondary and tertiary formation* of North America, 

 by Gabb and Horn, I find the 



Entalophora proboscideoides 3 ) (Pl. IV, figs. 26 and 27) 



from the eocene formation, distinguished from Pustulopora proboscidea, M. Edw., by the 

 same characters, that I see on the one of the Floridan forms. This is brought up 

 from 68 fathoms. W. of Tortugas. 



In comparison with speeimens of wliat I should think to be the typical P. pro- 

 boscidea, M. Edw., that I brought up from great depths, 300 — 600 fatlioms, in the neigh- 

 bourhood of the Azores, it is less robust, with the zoceeia and the stem more obvi- 

 ously marked b}' transverse striae, and with the zoascia more clearly distinguished from 

 each other in the whole of their connected length, as far as this is visible from with- 

 out (see fig. 26 and 27). Yet it must be remarked, that all these differences can pro- 

 bably be explained by the higher degree of calcination, in which the above named 

 speeimens of Entalophora proboscidea were to be seen, such as I think Milne-Edwards 

 saw and described that species also. But another difference, that I find parallelled by 

 the fossils of this genus from the eretaceous period, induces one still to regard the 

 living species here discussed as distinct. This is the difference in the size of the zo- 

 cecia. In the Floridan Entalophora proboscideoides I find the breadth of the zooeeia in 

 their free part varying about 0,09 mm., when in the abr>ve-named E. proboscidea I 

 have found this measure one lialf greater, viz. 0,14 mm. About the same difference is 

 to be observed 4 ) between the Ent. (Pust.) nana (Hag.) and E. (Pust.) virgula (Hag.). 



In almost the same degree of calcination, hyalo-calcareous, with white-edged 

 pores, as the -Ent. proboscideoides, but of a more inarine-bluish hue, the other Floridan 

 species presents a more crowded arrangement of the zooeeia, just in that degree, that 

 seeins to eharaeterize the 



Entalophora dejiexa 5 ) (Pl. V, figs. 28—30). 



The size of the zooeeia is about the same as that of the preceding species, and 

 even here we find the same transverse striation, although a little less common and 



') See Krit. Fört. 1. c, pag. 494, Anm. 



2 ) In honouring the classical paper of Milxe-Edwards, Sur les Crisies etc, I retain the name Pustuliporidce 

 for the family; though in accordance with the scientiric rules, I must concede, D'Orbigny was right in re- 

 stituting the generic nanie Entalophora. 



3 ) 1. c, pag. 180, tab. 21, fig. 60. 



4 ) Bryoz. Maastr. Kreideb. p. 17, tab. I. fig. 4 and 3. 



°) An Entalophora cellarioides, Lmrx., Exp. Meth., p. 81, tab. 80 fiifg. 9 — 11; Mich. Icon. Zooph. p. 233, 

 tab. 56. fig. 4? 



