82 Micro-Fauna, Botanic Gardens Lake, Melbourne. [vj"^''xxx"v 



till then, rare — species of Daphnia, Daphnia Imnholtzi, was found 

 to be extremely numerous ; this disappeared very quickly, 

 and during our year's collecting not a single specimen of it 

 was taken. The almost complete absence of the Ostracoda was 

 also noticeable. A few specimens of Cypridopsis minna were 

 taken on one or two occasions, but species like Cypris leana, that 

 delight in weedy pools, were absent from every gathering we 

 made. The Copepoda in the list are found in all the pools 

 around Melbourne, and one would expect to find other species 

 common to the Yarra valley represented in the lake ; but they 

 were not seen throughout the year under notice. 



All the great groups of Protozoa were represented in the 

 material collected, with the exception of the Sporozoa, which, 

 being endo-parasitic animals, were, of course, not noted. 

 Fixed and free-swimming forms were nearly equally numerous. 

 Of the genera comprised in the former, nearly half consisted 

 of Vorticella and its allies ; one of these latter — a Vaginicola 

 with an annulated tube or lorica — being probably new to 

 science. It is not, however, confined to the Botanic Gardens 

 lake. Protozoa, with few exceptions, were not taken in great 

 numbers at any one time. The times of occurrence of several 

 species, however, seem to indicate that the appearance of many, 

 at any rate, is not confined to special seasons. 



Of the Rotifera, the absence of new forms is noticeable. 

 Three forms are, however, possibly new — a species of Anuraea, 

 an Asplanchna, and a Conochilus. The Anurasa was first seen 

 by one of the party some time previously at Laanecoorie, and 

 obtained later by Dr. Kaufmann near Box Hill, and it has been 

 observed in other localities, occurring plentifully. In the 

 lake it was fairly numerous. None of the literature referred 

 to shows any figure at all like it. The genus Asplanchna is a 

 puzzling one to divide into species. Mr. Rousselet endeavoured 

 to make several common species clear, and pointed out some 

 mistakes of identification ; yet with his paper at hand it was 

 impossible to certainly identify the form found at the lake, 

 for the characters relied upon by that authority to separate 

 the respective species appeared to occur simultaneously in the 

 form in question. The Conochilus appeared very interestingly 

 in a collection made in Great Lake, Tasmania, during the 

 progress of this work. It was found in immense numbers, 

 and ample opportunity for examination was afforded. Years 

 ago this form was seen in collections from Heidelberg. Mr. 

 Rousselet, to whom drawings were submitted, was inclined 

 to regard it as C. unicornis, the species it nearly resembles ; 

 but fuller opportunities of examination strongly lead to the 

 decision that it is not identical. In this connection it may be 

 mentioned that Pterodina trilohata, a form included in the 



