136 
leda:e of an intercolonial connection shows how unfortunate 
was the conception of Thompson. If it was not for con- 
flicting claims the due meed of praise could be given to Dr. 
Thompson for such good investigation in this and several 
other branches of zoology, without pointing out that the 
general idea is not in accordance with the present know- 
ledge of the subject. 
As far as I am acquainted with the subject, it appears 
that all the fossil Bryozoa, with the exception of the 
tertiaries, have been too superficially described for any 
palseontological generalisations to have any value, for until 
much careful examination has been made, we shall feel 
uncertain as to which are Cheilostomata and which Cyclos- 
tomata, and the fact of Fenestella, which occur in such great 
numbers in the Paleozoic rocks, possibly not belonging to 
the Bryozoa, shows how much there is still to be done in 
micro-palseontology. 
One point which adds much to the interest of the Bryo- 
zoa is their wide relationships. As mentioned, they have 
long been removed from the Anthozoa. Milne-Edwards, 
Dr. Allman, and others have shown that there is an 
affinity with that interesting class, the Ascidians, the great 
interest of which consists in their connection of widely 
separated classes. Then with the Brachiopoda the con- 
nection is undoubted, and Schneider has shown that the 
embryonic development most nearly resembles that of the 
Gephyrea, an order of worms. Schneider also proved that 
Cyphonautes was the larva of Bryozoa, so that here, as in 
many other cases, the young form was previously thought 
to be an animal with an altogether different zoological 
position. As embryology is such an important factor in 
assisting classification, the Bryozoa are now considered to 
be most nearly related to the worms through the Gephyrea, 
and this has also removed the Brachiopoda towards the 
worms, so that instead of being most intimately related to 
