VINE: CAEBONIFEEOUS POLYZOA. 
163 
christened, perplexing alike the Paleontologist as well as the 
ordinary Geological student. Phillips has described nine species of 
Retepora (Fenestella), only three of which can be retained as 
tpyical, R. membranacea , nodulosa, and j^olyporata ; R. laxa must be 
referred to a different genus. As Millepora, PhilHps described two 
species of Ceriopora in the Geology of Yorkshire, Millejjora rhomhifera 
and interporosa, and in the Palaeozoic Fossils two others, M. gracilis 
and similis, which are more or less abundant in the Carboniferous 
formation. Two other species, 3f. spicularis and M. oculata, have 
been referred by Morris (Cat. of Brit. Foss.), to the genus PustuU 
opera Blainville. The Retepora pbima of Phillips belongs to at least 
two types of Polyzoa. 
As the whole of the Paliiiozoic Fenestellidse * have received 
from Mr. G. W. Shrubsole very marked attention, I am saved the 
necessity of furnishing any elaborate details, especially in respect to 
the Carboniferous species. Previous to the labours of Mr. Shrubsole 
there were about twenty-six described Fenestella, — these have been 
reduced to about five typical forms, and the elaborate details given 
by the author in his two papers, cause my labours on this gToup to 
be a comparatively easy one. I shall, therefore, accept without 
unnecessary discussion, Mr. Shrubsole's work, adopt the specific 
characters he has given, and also the types restricted or received by 
him. I do not accept the whole of the synonyms, for the simple 
reason that I desire to keep before me the labours of Phillips. I do 
not doubt the accuracy of the synonyms, because I believe, generally 
speaking, that Mr. Shrubsole is right. There is one advantage to 
be derived from purely local work over that of the more general 
labours in the study of our British Palaeozoic Polyzoa. In the local 
work we are compelled to duTCt particular attention to the types 
before us, because we find that whenever we recede from any life 
region there are divergencies, if not in the cell characters, at least 
in the habits of species which are worthy of much closer study than 
has yet been given to the subject. In the following pages I have 
described the specimens before me, and because of this I have not 
* A Review of Brit. Garb. FenestellidcB, Quart. Journ. Gaol. Soc, May, 1871), 
further Notes ibid May, 1881. 
