134 
formations only that sections will aid in our knowledge of 
the soft portions. I have as yet had little opportunity of 
examining Bryozoa older than the chalk, but in some Scotch 
Carboniferous shale I had given me there are some so well 
preserved that much of the structure of the shell can probably 
be worked out besides the shape of the cell; and the pyritic 
crystals between the cell walls show where there was organic 
tissue so many million years ago. 
I cannot help thinking that if more attention was given 
to sections of the small fossils, then we should be able to fix 
the age of most limestones from minute fragments, and 
should be able to know with much more exactness what 
animals lived in the seas of past ages ; but it is necessary 
that recent forms should first be examined to give a basis 
of comparison. Enough has been said about these animals 
to enable the next point to be now understood. 
It may be a matter of surprise that I should speak of 
the Bryozoa while the two first authorities, Dr. Busk and 
Dr. Allman, employ the name Polyzoa for this class, and I 
therefore think it necessary to state my reasons, and leave 
each one to consider whether they are sufficient or not. 
My principal reason is, that after a struggle of nearly half 
a century, the Polyzoists are in a great minority, for in all 
the countries of Europe, with the exception of England, the 
term Bryozoa is used, and has been adopted by d’Orbigny, 
Hagenow, Bronn, Yan Beneden, Krohn, Haime, Leuchart, 
Reichert, Reuss, Nitsche, Kirchenpauer, Smitt, Roemer, 
Claperede, Manzoni, Joliet, and many other zoologists who 
have not made them a speciality. Sars, in a short paper, 
uses Polyzoa, and Leidy and Hyatt, in America, have fol- 
lowed their English leader, while Dana is a Bryozoist. 
As uniformity of nomenclature is in science of such great 
importance, it is much to be wished that one term should 
be used by all. However, if there were not other reasons, 
it would seem right for science to be encumbered by the 
