110 The Philippine Journal of Science 1922 
of twelve coenobia he records that one daughter of No. 2 had 
“sixteen reproductive cells of half the size” as compared with 
those of its nearest sister, and No. 4 contained a “typical 
daughter with 18 or 20 reproductive cells.” I take these to be 
real female daughters. Embryonic female coenobia are prob- 
ably shown in his figs. 830 and 47, in which the reproductive 
cells, it was stated, are “probably 18 or 20” and “double the 
[usual] number of reproductive cells,” respectively. Of the 
latter case Powers said: “Their position in pairs may be par- 
tially noted; also their size reduced by one-half.” 
No free stages of the female coenobia were described, and 
likewise no oospores. 
MERRILLOSPHAERA MIGULAE SP. NOV. 
Klein’s description, under the name Volvox aureus (’89B), 
of material that had been collected and prepared by Migula in 
Karlsruhe, Germany, was probably less complete than it might 
otherwise have been, partly as a result of the treatment of the 
material as a mere form of a species which Klein had recently 
described in great detail, and partly as a result of being rep- 
resented by preserved material only. The most important part 
of this description consists of the figures of eight coenobia with 
various contents. The first figure shows a coenobium which 
differs from typical Merrillosphaera carteri in being smaller, 
having a smaller number of somatic cells, and having the pro- 
toplasts of the latter somewhat more elongated. More-marked 
differences are apparent in other figures. 
Before we attempt to summarize the characters of the coe- 
nobia described we have to consider the possibility or probability 
that certain misinterpretations were incorporated in the de- 
scription. In one of the figures (Klein ’98B, fig. 7) the neighbor- 
ing somatic protoplasts are shown connected by proptoplasmic 
filaments of the kind that is characteristic of Volvox aureus. 
Since Klein definitely stated that such connecting filaments were 
not visible in the preparations, the drawing evidently shows more 
than was visible. This leads me to question whether the four re- 
productive cells in this coenobium, and similar cells in five other 
coenobia, that were called, by Klein, “recently fertilized eggs” 
and drawn with very distinct and apparently thickened walls, 
were properly interpreted and correctly drawn. In view of the 
unquestionable fact that such a misinterpretation was made by 
Powers (’08) when he called the gonidia “ova,” it is not un- 
thinkable that such an error should have been made by Klein. 
