InterzooeciaV Communication in Flustridse. By A. W. Waters. 287 
With such genera as Flustra and Membranipora, as we become 
better acquainted with more of the minute characters, the distribution 
can be better studied ; but except where genera have been very 
thoroughly worked up there will be much uncertainty in speaking of 
the geographical distribution, and naturally the results with highly 
differentiated species will be the most reliable. Let us take Chlidonia 
Cordierii Sav., which has a characteristic zoarial growth, a stalk of 
peculiar character from which grow branches bearing zooecia of a 
marked form ; now when it is found common on both the European 
and African coasts of the Mediterranean, also in New Zealand and 
Australia, we feel that there is no possibility of doubt as to the 
determination, and we recognise the fact of its wide distribution, 
though not forgetting that it may have been introduced by ships. 
Turning to the Cyclostomata, where few characters can be used 
for classification, there is always much uncertainty about the de- 
termination of recent, and still more of fossil species. Perhaps the 
simplest of all Bryozoa is Entalophora, and it is natural that the least 
differentiated should be the most widely distributed, and last through 
the longest time, now there is a carboniferous Entalophora , in which 
I fail to find any difference between forms from the Jurassic, Cre- 
taceous, and Tertiary formations ; or from living specimens. One of 
our most experienced palaeontologists has agreed with me that no 
difference could be found, though it does not follow that if all the 
hard and soft parts could be compared, differences of a specific or 
generic character might not be discovered ; but until differences can 
be demonstrated there does not seem any sufficient reason for giving 
more than one name. Workers in this group would not attach the 
same importance to this last case as to the former ; but it is difficult 
for those who are not specialists to appreciate in which genera the 
results may be looked upon as reliable. 
Flustra papyrea Pall, (non Busk, non Smitt). 
Eschara papyrea Pallas, Elenchus Zoophytorum, p. 56. Flustra 
papyrea Waters, Bryozoa of the Bay of Naples, Ann. and Mag. Nat. 
Hist., ser. 5, iii. p. 119. Garbasea papyrea Pall. var. Mazeli, Marion, 
Ann. des Sciences Nat., ser. 6, viii. p. 32, plate xvii. fig. 10. 
Mr. Hincks, in a footnote* to Flustra carbasea, supports Kirchen- 
pauer in thinking that F. carbasea Ell. and Sol. should be separated 
from F. papyrea , as the first has the cells linguiform, while in the 
latter they are described as rhombic. The shape of the colony is 
the same thing as Ellis and Solander mention from the West Indies. Busk, in his 
‘Challenger’ Report, says this is not the species of Ellis and Solander, but gives a 
reference to Lamouroux’s Expos. Meth. Now Lamouroux used the plate previously 
published by Ellis, and merely quoted Ellis’s description, so that they must stand or 
fall together. If tliis is not Ellis and Solander’s species the name should have been 
changed. * Hincks, Brit. Mar. Polyzoa, p. 125. 
x 2 
