Contributions to the anatomy of anthropoid apes / by Frank E. Beddard.
- Frank Evers Beddard
- Date:
- 1893
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Contributions to the anatomy of anthropoid apes / by Frank E. Beddard. Source: Wellcome Collection.
69/246 page 221
![Peristomial Pore (“ Sublabial pore ” of Busk). A pore below the aperture which simply leads into the peristomial chamber. Punctures. A series of pores left between the anastomosing spines of the front wall of Cribrilina, &c. Areolce. Pits or tubular depressions occurring in linear series around the margins of zooecia, e. g. in Notamia wetherelli. Macula. A term suggested for the small irregular cavities in the walls of the zooecia: they correspond to the main part of the “ pores cVorigelles ” of Jullien [No. 3, p. 607], but since Pergens [No. 7] has thrown such discredit on Jullien’s views on these structures it seems hardly advisable to circulate this term. The name is derived from “ maculae,” the meshes of a net, as, according to Pergens, they originate simply by non-calcification of part of the wall. When seen on the front wall of a zocecium they resemble small pits or depressions. Opesiulce. A term applied by Jullien to the secondary small apertures, of which a pair usually occur on the front walls of the zooecia of Micropora, &c. III. Classification. Probably no one who has tried to determine to which of the twenty to thirty families of Cheilostomata some form new to him must be referred will complain of an attempt to arrange these families into groups. Among the Euechinoidea, for example, there are twenty-five families distributed amongst five orders, some of which are divided into sub- orders. But among the Cheilostomata we have as many or more families, without any definite larger groups, except the ill-fated ones proposed by Dr. Jullien [No. 4] and the antiquated ones of Mr. Busk h The inconveniences of this are manifold ; the diagnosis of each family has to be of inconvenient length, and the task of discovering the exact systematic position of any species is a matter of much difficulty. Neither the Eev. T. H. Hincks nor Mr. Waters offer much encouragement to an attempt at any serious alteration, as the former points out emphatically that all classifi- cations at present must be tentative and the latter discourages what he calls “ an attack along the whole line.” But then all classifications are probably more or less tentative and temporary, and, so far as I am able to judge, some grouping of the families is an essential preliminary to an attempt to revise the families in detail and dissipate the chaos in which at present the fossil Bryozoa are involved. Though there is of course much uncertainty as to the exact taxonomic value of several characters, there does seem to be a pretty general agreement as to the most important structures. The development of the front wall seems about the leading feature, as so many of the other characters, e. g. the aperture, the position and deve- lopment of avicularia, &c., are correlated with this. The use made by Jullien of the front wall has perhaps prejudiced some workers against this structure; but Jullien has based his classification on modifications that most workers regard as of very slight value, while his method of nomenclature is quite his own. As M. Dollfus has pointed out in an admirable criticism, Dr. J ullien simply does not accept the principle of priority. 1 Busk of course based his divisions on zoarial characters, and these, though somewhat improved b> Dr. Ortmann [No. 1, pp. 3, 4], are now quite inadequate. 2 K 2](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b28141386_0069.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
