vine: classifications of cyclostomatous polyzoa. 
357 
error of observation on the part of Lamouroux, or of his draughtsman, 
or is the true condition, may, perhaps, admit of doubt : with the 
exception of M. Michelin (Iconog. PI. Ivi., fig. 4), whose figure very 
strongly resembles that of Lamouroux, no one seems to have recorded 
any other form with trumpet-shaped tubes ; and as even his figure 
does not represent them as having that form, I am much inclined 
to assume that Lamouroux's specimen is unique in that respect, and 
if correctly figured and described, that it must, on that account 
alone, be referred to a distinct generic type from all other known 
Pustuloporidae, and in fact, as above observed, from all other Cyc- 
lostomata. (May it not be a coralline ?) On the other hand, M. 
de Blainville's definition of Paatulopom, as distinguished from 
Lamouroux's Eatalophora, is so clear and precise, and his genus 
has met with the acceptance of M. Milne-Edwards, Hagenow, Reuss, 
and numerous others, and in fact may be said, until quite recently, 
to have been in full possession of the field, that I feel no hesitation 
in retaining it for all forms with cylindrical tubes of the same 
diameter througlwut ; and relegating those forms, if there really be 
any, with trumpet-shaped tubes, to at least a distinct genus." 
If we revert now to the Crag Polyzoa, p. 107, we shall find that 
the opinion now so forcibly put by Mr. Busk (Challenger Rep., pt. ii., 
as above), was only hesitatingly adopted in the former work. It 
was not then wholly a question of structure ; but, as Mr. Hincks 
says suggestively, a question of difiidence as to priority, or clearer 
definition. Mr. Busk says : ''I have adopted Blainville's name for 
this genus (Genus 3. Pustulopora), more for the reason that it has 
come into general acceptation, especially since its accurate definition 
by Milne-Edwards, than because I am satisfied it should have pre- 
cedence of Enta'ojjliora, a term under which it appears quite clear that 
Lamouroux had intended to include similar forms. The prior appella- 
tion, however, having fallen into abeyance, except by M. D'Orbigny, 
whose genus Entalophora, moreover, is not confined to Cyclostomatous 
forms only, it seemed unadvisable, merely for the sake of somewhat 
pedantic propriety here to revive it." 
Neither of these authors has drawn attention to the fact that 
Jules Haime, in his Jurassic Bryozoa, only places one species in the 
