152 Transactions of the Society. 



tinder the PuUar Trust, but in England nothing whatever is being 

 "done in this direction. 



C Zelinka (226) has published a very complete list of marine 

 Eotifera, or at least of all Eotifers ever found in the sea. 



Three important monographs have appeared, namely : the 

 Eattulidffi, by H. S. Jennings (1H4) ; the genus Diaschiza, by F. E. 

 Dixon-Nuttall and Freeman (156) ; the Melicertidse, by St. Hlava 

 (160), and I liave myself given a list of all known Male Eotifers 

 up to 1903 (205). 



Of other works, dealing with the anatomy and histology of 

 Eotifers, the most important is that of P. de Beauchamp, whose 

 researches on the minute anatomy of the various tissues of the 

 body, including the integument and glands, the corona and retro- 

 cerebral organ, the mastax and digestive tract, have thrown much 

 liglit on many obscure points. In particular the comparative study 

 of the structure, function, and evolution of the mastax in the various 

 families is most instructive. 



In recent years a practice has arisen to dig up ancient and 

 fossil names and substitute them for the present names — 

 most of which have been established by Ehrenberg and been re- 

 cognized and become familiar to zoologists all over the world for 

 a period of over seventy years. In most cases such changes are 

 only based on individual opinion that such and such an ancient 

 very inadequate description or illustration stands for a certain 

 species, which interpretation may or may not be accepted by others, 

 or may be invalidated again on some other technical ground, with 

 the result of gradually producing a state of chaos in the nomenclature 

 of the Eotifera. 



As these new names are not new species, they do not really 

 concern me here, but I think it desirable to refer to the matter in 

 order to prevent, if possible, the nomenclature of the Eotifera being 

 brought into a state of hopeless confusion. 



One author who has sinned much in this direction quaintly 

 remarks that anyone who has a desire to revise the current names 

 of Eotifera, will soon find an abundance of old, wholly forgotten 

 names, in the works of Schrank, Lamarck, Bory de St. Vincent, 

 etc., which would have to take the place of the present familiar 

 generic names. No doubt he would, and thereby very greatly in- 

 crease the confusion into this, already very complicated, nomen- 

 clature. How could a list of species with such new generic and 

 specific names be compared with lists made at any time during the 

 last seventy years ? Every other name would require a lengthy 

 explanatory note to inform the reader which animal is really meant. 

 Such a state of things would soon become intolerable, and for this 

 reason I cannot accept, but must ignore, all such changed generic 

 and specific names. 



