NEW INTERPRETATION OF CNIDARIA 247 



theless written in his most recent "Lehrbuch der speziellen 

 Zoologie" (1:92) the gratifying note that it is "keineswegs 

 entschieden, ob die traditionelle Reihenfolge Hydrozoa, 

 Scyphozoa, Anthozoa der Stammesgeschichte entspricht, und 

 ob die Coelenterata stammesgeschichtHch die Wurzel der Bila- 

 teria bilden oder einen friihen, blind endigenden Seitenast der 

 Eumetazoa." 



It was in the form of rhetoric questions only that Ulrich 

 (1951:260) expressed his support of the idea of the primitive 

 character of Anthozoa within the frame of Cnidaria. These 

 questions refer to actual difficulties one meets if one tries 

 to consider the Hydrozoa as the most primitive Cnidaria. 

 Ulrich concludes his discussion of the problem with the obser- 

 vation, "las sen sich alle Schwierigkeiten recht gut beheben, 

 wenn man die Evolution des heutigen Cnidarienmaterials 

 nicht als progressiv, sondern als regressiv beurteilt." Simulta- 

 neously Ulrich promises a special work which will discuss this 

 theme; to the best of my knowledge, however, nothing 

 has so far been published. 



Remane, too, is undecided when he writes on Cnidaria 

 in the extensive Handbuch der Biologie which is still being 

 published under the editorship of L. von BertalanfFy. In the 

 text Remane preserves the traditional sequence of the 

 three classes of Cnidaria. In the final paragraph ("Phylogenie, 

 Systematik"), however, Remane states as follows, "Den 

 phylogenetischen Zusammenhang der drei Klassen Hydrozoa, 

 Scyphozoa und Anthozoa kennen wir noch nicht . . . Wer der 

 einfacheren Organisation hohe stammesgeschichtUche Bedeu- 

 tung zumisst, wird die Hydrozoen als primitivste Gruppe 

 betrachten, doch lassen sich mit gleicher Berechtigung auch 

 andere Auffassungen vertreten." We can see the reverse 

 sequence— whose correctness I have tried to prove— to be 

 more justified in the fact that later Remane himself has 

 made a more positive statement in favour of the new inter- 

 pretation (Remane, 1960). On the basis of a statement made 

 by Steinbock (1958) and according to w^hich Coelenterata as 

 17* 



