VINE : CLASSIFICATION OF THE PALEOZOIC POLYZOA. 
39 
attempt classifying such vast masses of mixed forms on the old lines 
of a varying Zoarium, or on the possession of a more or less number 
of cells to the branch, as in the Femstelkt, is a task I leave to others. 
Yet so far as our own Polypora are concerned it seems to me not a 
wise grouping to found a family name Fenestellidw, on account of the 
banding together by dissepiments of the branches of a form, 
regardless altogether of the structure of the cells and the Zoarium. 
I am well aware that in the rocks of the Niagara group, and also in 
our Dudley limestone there are species with alternating branches, 
bearing two and three rows of pores, yet so far as I have been able 
to study the forms superficially, both the branches and the cells 
differ from those of Pohjpom. My material of the species is how- 
ever too limited to warrant a more critical opinion. 
At the beginning of this paper I specified two wants — 
1st, a suitably definite nomenclature descriptive of the structural 
elements of the Zoarium ; and 2nd, a ready agreement on the 
part of Palaeontologists as to what should, and what should not 
be, admitted as Bryozoa. 
In the details given above, I think I have justified this necessity 
in dealing with Palaeozoic forms. It now remains for me to carry the 
work a step forward by asking, in the interests of Palaeontolog}^, 
plainly — What are Polyzoa ? What are the marks in the Zooecia or 
Zoarium which distinguishes the gToup from all other gToups ? I do 
not ask in the interests of either biology or of ordinary natural 
history, because both the Biologist and the Naturalist can resort to 
the living animal or to well-sectioned tissues for the solution of nearly 
all their difticulties. Besides special memoirs we have the introduc- 
tion to Hinck's British Marine, and Dr. AUman's Monograph of the 
Fresh Water Polyzoa. These works, however, do not sufficiently 
describe the Zoarium of the more calcareous Cyclostomata so as to 
be of use to the Palaeontologist, but good work has been attempted 
nevertheless. Mr. Waters"" very accurately describes my own views 
on the subject as well as proposes to me a problem which still 
awaits solution, but of which this paper is the first instalment. 
He says, — " Although it would be impossible here to give a 
♦Fossil Cyclostomata from Australia, Quart. Jour. Geol, Soc, Vol. 40, pp. 679-680. 
