53 



very fine and closely-set peristomal cilia, heavy apical styles (6) 

 and single linear row of frontal setae (8 to lo) were as described 

 by Cohn. 



Immediately under the oral aperture, down the entire length of, 

 and parallel with the ventral surface, were two rows of setae, 

 closely set and occupying the central third of that surface. Just 

 below the termination of these rows were five anal setae, most of 

 which projected over the caudal border. Hispid setae, as long or 

 longer than half the greatest body-width, were very distinct on 

 the margins and dorsal surface of the whole animal. There were 

 no caudal setae. The color of the body was very like that of Lox- 

 ocephalus granulosus, and the inclusions which gave it this color 

 appeared to be of the same nature as those found in L. granulosus. 

 In the live animal, no contractile vacuole could be positively deter- 

 mined. At tirnes, what appeared as a single bright, irregularly- 

 shaped space could be seen, while at other times the two clear 

 spaces, which Cohn supposed to be the contractile vacuoles, were 

 in evidence. 



Staining with picro-carmine brought out scores of small, round 

 nuclei distributed throughout both sections of the body. A suc- 

 cessful effort to isolate these nuclei demonstrated that they were 

 not connected. The tuft of cilia (Wimperbi^ischel), which Cohn 

 mentions as protruding from the oral aperture, was determined 

 in the live animal to be an extensile, trap-like membrane, similar 

 to, but smaller than that of Cyclidiuni glaucoma. 



It will be noted that my description differs from that of Cohn 

 in that there are no caudal setae. The error in interpreting the 

 membrane as a tuft of cilia was not an uncommon one at the time 

 he wrote his description (i866). In all other respects we agree 

 so closely that I am strongly inclined to believe that I had his spe- 

 cies under observation. 



The dorsal hispid setae were so very obvious along the margins 

 that I think it quite probable "" that Cohn mistook them for the 

 caudal series. 



Maupas ('83) has done some work on this form and I regret 

 that I have not his paper to consult. 



Stichochaeta (Gonostomuinf) Corsica Gourret & Roeser ('88) 

 resembles this species very much but the following differences are 

 sufficient to separate them: The frontal series is double, ventral 

 series diagonal, anal series absent, marginal series at the caudal 

 border very numerous, the nucleus single and the oral membrane 

 absent. 



