8 
STOMATOPOEA. 
in long linear series owing to the rarity of branching ; even in very 
typical specimens of S. granulata one branch may run for some 
distance without dividing. 
Pergens also includes d’Orbigny’s two species 8. incrauata and 
8. reticulata in 8. granulata ; the dimensions given by M. Pergens 
for the three types are identical. 
A variety was founded by Pergens for specimens with especially 
large zooecia. According to his measurements the zooecia of the 
typical members of 8. granulata have an average diameter of 
*37 mm. (varying from *26 to '48 mm.), with an aperture of '09 mm. 
in diameter ; the corresponding dimensions in his var. gigantea are 
'5 mm. (varying from '4 to '6 mm.) and '12 mm., while the zooecia 
are from 1'2 to I '5 mm. long. The specimen illustrated by PL I. 
Pig. 1 is therefore a large form of the gigantea variety, while PI. I. 
Pig. 2 shows the more typical form. 
A closely allied form to var. gigantea is the Bryozoan described 
by von Peuss as 8. rugulosa. Calculated from Reuss’s figures the 
zooecia are '5 mm. broad and l'25mm. long, and have the orifices 
*15 mm. in diameter; so that the dimensions are the same as in 
Pergens’ var. gigantea. The characteristic of this variety is the 
regularity and prominence of the transverse corrugation ; in 
consequence of this character specimens referable to this variety 
have often a very crooked growth. The Miocene Bryozoan 
from Eisenstadt described as Alecto rugulosa by Manzoni is 
a Proloscina. 
Vine originally described a species found in the Cambridge 
Greensand as 8tomatopora gracilis ; but in his description he 
expressly mentions that the branches of the zoarium rarely anas- 
tomosed, and that the zooecia are thick. In his “ Purther Hotes 
on the Polyzoa of the Lower Greensand and the Upper Greensand 
of Cambridge,” he makes no mention of this species, but refers 
the specimens of 8tomatopora to two species — 8. graciliformisy Tine, 
and 8. linearis, var. mortoni, n. var. The latter seems to be clearly 
the same form that Yine had previously referred to 8. gracilis ; 
while the former is certainly a synonym of 8. sulgracilis, d’Orb. ; 
for the name was only proposed owing to Yine having overlooked 
the fact that d’Orbigny had himself renamed the form he had 
erroneously assigned to 8. gracilis (Edw.). Both the Cambridge 
Greensand forms, therefore, belong to 8. granulata. Yine’s main 
reason for separating them into two species was apparently owing 
