D. BRYCE ON A NEW CLASSIFICATION OF THE BDELLOID ROTIFERA. 83^ 



Hudson and Gosse (19) as his species. These authors neither 

 confirm nor deny the accuracy of Ehrenberg's statements. Yet 

 they state that the form recognised by them as his C. elegans has- 

 an antenna longer than the width of the corona, that it has three- 

 toes, that the spurs are middling, and that the foot is thick 

 a final detail which is important, since it contradicts the 

 resemblance to P. erythroj^hthalmay which has a foot as long 

 and as slender as that of P. roseola. That Hudson and 

 Gosse's species had no prominent teeth does not perhaps conflict 

 with Ehrenberg's description of the rami as having many fine 

 teeth. 



It has, however, seemed to me to be possible to recognise the 

 animal which Hudson and Gosse had in mind. Their description 

 of the corona is the one happy touch which indicates a species- 

 common enough in weedy pools. They say that the corona is 

 scarcely w^der than the body, the double disc being very little- 

 more than a full circle or two circles very slightly separated. 



The species to which this description in my opinion applies the- 

 best has a number of fine teeth, a corona with discs whose 

 pedicels are somewhat squat or truncate, and in these details 

 would not appreciably conflict with Ehrenberg's description;, 

 but the foot has no resemblance to that of P. erythrophthalma, the 

 spurs have a most distinctive form not suggested by either of the- 

 authors, and, above all, the species has a wide lumen and is- 

 distinctly a pellet-^naker . 



It is probable that the form which Janson (38) cursorily 

 describes as Ehrenberg's species is identical with that of Hudson 

 and Gosse, if one may judge from his description and figure of 

 the spurs. He states that the foot has only three segments, that 

 the rami have ten to eleven fine teeth, and that the antenna is- 

 somewhat large. 



Ehrenberg was possibly mistaken as to the number of toes. 

 It is known that he was inaccurate on this point with respect to- 

 the genus Rotifer, while correct with regard to the genus 

 Philodina. But I cannot think that he would have failed to- 

 distinguish between the short stout foot of Hudson and Gosse's 

 C. elegans, and the long slender foot of P. erythrophthalma, and that 

 he would only be able to distinguish the two species by examina- 

 tion of the rami, as in eflfect he states with regard to his C. elegans^ 

 And again, I cannot brush aside his statement that the stomach. 



