390 



G. R. VINE ON THE FAMILY DIASTOPORIDJE. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE XIX. 

 Figs. 1-10. Diastopora stomatoporides, "Vine. 



I. 2. Natural size of two different colonies. 



3, 4, 7. Enlarged respectively about 10, and 15 diameters, to show the 



disposition and character of the cells. 

 5, 6. X 25 diam., showing the elongated character of cells, together with 



the rugose markings on some. 



8. X 50 diam. 



9. X 30 diam. 



10. Aperture of cell, X 50 times, to show the true Elea-foliacea {Dia- 

 stopora, Lamx.) type of peristome ; from colony. Fig. 4. As above. 

 (Compare Berenicea striata, Haime, pi. vii. fig. 8, a, b, ' Foss. Bryozoa 

 of the Jurassic Formation.') 



Figs. 11-14. Diastopora oolitica, Vine. 



II. Natural size of colony. 



12. X about 8 diam. There is much variation in this type ; but it has 

 generally a circular habit, as depicted. 



13. X about 33 diam. 



14. X about 50 diam. 



Figs. 15-17. Diastopora ventricosa, Vine. 



15. Natural size of colony. This also varies as to size of colony. 



16. X 25 times, showing the disposition of the ocecial "gonoecia," Hindis, 

 in the different parts of the colony. 



17. X about 50 diam. 



Figs. 18-25. Diastopora cricopora, Vine. 



18. Natural size of colony from which the type is drawn. The specimens 

 in the School of Mines vary considerably. 



19. Portion of colony, enlarged in the direction of line I, fig. 18, to show 

 the disposition of the partially immersed cells. 



20-22. X 25 times, giving a fair illustration of the ornamentation of the 

 cells. 



23, 24. X 75 times. 



25. Two separate colonies : the uppermost, D. cricopora (marginal edge), 

 incrusting Elect, foliacea, Lamx. 



Discussion. 



The President bore witness to the great value of the author's 

 study of this group of microscopic organisms. 



Pro! Seeley stated that his study of the Polyzoa had led him to 

 conclude that many of the supposed generic differences were mere 

 accidents of age and growth. He thought that Mr. Vine's paper 

 was a valuable addition to science. He doubted the wisdom of 

 inventing wholly new names for previously described species, as had 

 been done in one instance by the author. 



