BY E. F. KALLMANN. 499 



A. victoriana (PI. xxxi., figs.l, 2), — yet the descriptions of other 

 species seem to indicate that intermediate (as well as additional) 

 types of skeleton occur, while in not a few instances, furthermore, 

 the requisite information relating to the skeleton is lacking. At 

 the outset, a satisfactory line of division between the two genera 

 seemed to me possibly securable by taking into account the fact 

 that in most if not all of the indubitable species of Biemna the 

 microscleres include commata, but neA'^er microstrongyla, whereas 

 in the remaining species commata are absent; but the service- 

 ableness of this as a means of distinction appears to be ruled out 

 of court by the circumstance, recently announced by Topsent(54), 

 that in B. peachi commata are apparently sometimes missing. A 

 further difficulty is created by Topsent's discovery {loc. cit.) that 

 "commata" are present in his Bievina Jistulosa, which have not 

 the form of curved microstvli but "s'y montrent flexueux avec un 

 bout renfle et I'autre un peu aminci," so that their form "rapelle 

 un peu celle de sigmaspires deroulees": and it is possible that 

 these microscleres are a connecting-link between the stvliform 

 commata of B. peachi, etc., and the microstrongyla of typical 

 AUantophora-s,Y>ec\GS,. Consequently, since one is unable so to 

 define the genera as to render them mutually exclusive, there is 

 no alternative for the time being but to combine them, and I 

 have therefore formulated the diagnosis of Biemna accordingly. 

 Inasmuch, however, as I am confident (hat the necessity for this 

 is onl\' temporary, and that a fuller knowledge of the species 

 concerned will furnish occasion for the rehabilitation of the 

 genus AUantophora, I have refrained for the present from dis- 

 carding the name in the designation of the species described 

 below, to which it must necessarily apply if the genus be ulti- 

 mately readopted. 



The amendment which I introduce in regard to the distinction 

 to be drawn between the genera Biemna and Tylodesvia affects 

 the position only of five species, namely, of Tylodesvia micro- 

 strongyla Hentschel, and 2\ microxa Hentschel, which (as their 

 spiculation consists of styli, sigmata, trichites, and, in the 

 former, also of microstrongyla) must be included in Biemna; and 

 of Biemna hnviilis Thiele(41), B. vulgaris Topsent(4i5), and 



