18 
THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 
3. Pustulopora, Blainville. 
Pustulopora, Blainville (text), Man. d’Actin., p. 418, 1834 ; Milne-Edwards, Hagenow (nec 
Geinitz), Reuss, Miclielin(i), Grube, Meneghini; Busk, Brit. Mus. Cat., pt. iii. p. 20, &c.; 
Macgilliv., Proc. R. Soc. Viet., December 1880, p. 6. 
Pustulipora , Blainv. (index), Johnston, Gray, Sars, Joliet. 
Tubulipora (pars), Couch. 
Entalophora (pars), d’Orbigny (nec Lamouroux), Hincks, Brit. Mar. Polyz., p. 455 ; Smitt, 
Florid. Bryoz., vol. i. p. 11 ; Stoliczka, Waters, &c. 
Character. — Zoarium erect, simple or branched, cylindrical ; branches irregular, com- 
posed of tubular zocecia partially or wholly connate or immersed ; opening on all sides of 
the branch, and disposed quincuncially or irregularly, sometimes in more or less annular 
or subspiral order. 
Although most recent writers, including such high authorities as Professor Smitt and 
Mr. Hincks, have adopted the name Entalophora for the genus here intended, I am 
inclined, with the greatest deference, to prefer M. de Blainville’s and M. Milne-Edwards’ 
name, for the reason that the species named Entalophora by Lamouroux appears to 
me to differ in at least one most important respect, it may be said, from all the other 
known Cyclostomata, and most certainly from all with which I am acquainted, either 
recent or fossil, viz., in the appendages, as he terms them, being trumpet-shaped, or 
gradually increasing in diameter as they increase in length. Whether this arises from an 
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. lvi. 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 speci- 
men 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 Pustuloporidse, 
and in fact, as above observed, from all other Cyclostomata. (May it not be a coralline?). 
On the other hand, M. de Blainville’s definition of Pustulopora, as distinguished from 
Lamouroux’s Entalophora, is so clear and precise, and his genus has met with the 
acceptance of M. Milne-Edwards, Hagenow, Beuss, 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 
throughout ; and in relegating those forms, if there really be any, with trumpet-shaped 
tubes, to at least a distinct genus. 
With respect to the spelling of the name there can be no doubt that Pustulopora is 
the correct way, Pustulipora being apparently merely a printer’s error in the index to 
the Manuel d’Actinologie. In the text ( loc . cit.) M. de Blainville has it Pustulopora. 
Mr. Macgillivray has passed over a similar misprint (loc. cit.) the name being spelled 
Pustulopora in the text and Pustulopora in the description of the plates. 
