I^’TRODUCTION. 
XXIX 
Eusk’s arrangement, however, showed in his second subdivision 
of the Inarticulata his recognition of the need for the separation of 
the massive genera, the Trepostomata. . His scheme is as follows : — 
I. Articulatae Crisiidiie 
II. Inarticulatse. 
(rt) Cellulis distinctis Idmoneidae 
Tubuliporida; 
Diastoporida3 
(d) Cellulis Cerioporidtc 
indistinctis 
Theonoidne 
F rondiporidyo 
Crisidia and Crisia. 
Hornera, Terebellaria, Crico- 
pora, Cyrtopora, Idmonea, and 
Fustulipora. 
^Tesenteripora, TubiiUpora, and 
Alecto. 
Fiastopova, Fatinella, Fisco- 
pcrella, and Fefrancia. 
Fiingella, Seteropora, Heiero- 
porella^ Stellipora,Neuroporay 
and Spii'opora. 
A Iveolaria, Fascicularia, 
Theonoa, and Lopholepis. 
Frondiporay Truncatulay Fisti- 
clioportty and Plethopora. 
Busk’s separation of Articulata has been widely retained, rather 
as a matter of convenience ; and, as Waters remarks, the division is 
of no special value. 
F. A. Smitt in several papers on the Cyclostomata adopted 
a classification based on a combination of the views of Busk and 
d’Orbigny, and he gave Latin forms — Tubulinea and Fasciculinea — 
to two of d’Orbigny’s names. vSmitt’s classification may be 
illustrated by the arrangement followed in his “Bryozoa marina 
in regionibus arcticis et borealibus viventia.” He subdivided the 
Cyclostomata as follows : — ^ 
Suborder 1. 
„ 2 . 
Eadicellata, d’Orb 
Incrustata, d’Orb. 
Section a, Tubulinea, d’Orb. 
Section by Fascicuhnea, d’Orb. 
Fam. 1. Crisiese. 
,, 2. Diastoporidae. 
,, 3. Tubuliporidae (including 
Idmonea and Froboscina 
as subgenera of Tubuli- 
pora). 
yy 4. Horneridae. 
,, 5. Licbenoporidae. 
,, 6. Frondiporidae. 
,, 7. Corymboporidae. 
,, 8. Defrancieae. 
i bfvers. k. Vet.-Akad. Fdrh. 1867, vol. xxiv. pp. 444-7. 
