380 
VINE: NOTES ON FOSSIL POLYZOA. 
. . be the means of distingfuishing it from Phillips' species. . . 
This new character consists of a series of thin, perforated tabulse, 
that exists in the outer portion of the tubes of the larg-er corallites. 
The perforation or central opening- in these tabulae is of a roundly 
crescentic or reniform shape, and has a thickened edg"e around its 
margin ; its diameter being- one third the width of the tubes." This 
" perforated tabulae " is sufficiently characteristic to distinguish the 
Scotch from the Yorkshire form at least, and Mr. Young has only 
acted consistently by naming it Tabulipora Urii, Young.* 
In his writings on " American Palgeozoic Bryozoa,"t Mr. E. 0. 
Ulrich founded the Genus Batostomella" as one of a numerous list 
of genera which he included in the Family Monticuliporidse Nicholson. 
The description of the Genus is " Ramose, branches smooth, usually 
small ; cell apertures small, interstitial cells and spiniform tubuli few 
to numerous ; walls of tubes in the peripheral region thick, and 
seemingly fused together. Trenton to Carboniferous." In this 
Genus Mr. Ulrich (op. cit. Ap. 1884, p. 26) places Phillips species as 
Batostomella tumida, Phill., but as he places very near to it 
the Scotch form Ceriopora interporosa, Phill., which in many respects 
has a faint resemblance to Tabulipora Urii^ Young, in all probability 
Mr. Ulrich refers to his Genus, not Phillips', but Ure's species. J 
This last reference I cite because Mr. Ulrich believes that the 
whole of the Mouticuliporidge are Bryozoa (or Polyzoa) ; and because 
I have ventured to differ from him on this particular in my fourth 
Brit. Associa. Report on Foss. Polyzoa, 1883, I seem to have greatly 
offended him {vide Jour. Cin. Soc. Nat. Hist., Ap., 1884). Notwith- 
standing this, I shall faithfully consider, in the remarks which will 
follow, all the moot points which he has raised in his defence of 
the Bryozoal nature of the Monticuliporidse, of which family Phillips 
species is a member, though a very erratic one. And I do this with 
a still greater desire for faithfulness, because Phillips' species and 
the Scotch species at that time§ considered identically the same as 
* Mr. Young says, T. Urii, Flem. Bnt this is wrong, 
t Cin. Soc. of Nat. Hist., Oct., 1882. 
X Question — On the description of Mr. Etheridge, jun. ? 
§ Anu. Mag. Xat. Hist., 1874. 
