378 THK EVOLUTION OF THE METAZOA 



W. Marinelli, ibid: 311). It is possible that in the schematic sur- 

 vey the word Coelenterata was omitted due to a mistake only. 



L. Cuenot (Traite de Zoologie, I., ed. P. Grasse, Phylogenese du 

 regne animal^ Arhre genealogique^ p. 2, cf. Fig. 50), too, would 

 like to dispense with the taxon Coelenterata while at the same 

 time he preserves the taxon Coelomata. Cuenot represents this 

 graphically in such a way that he places two independent short 

 branches on a very short common stem ; the left branch which 

 is longer represents the Cnidaria while the smaller branch 

 which appears on the right side of the stem embodies the 

 Ctenophora. In this way the scheme as proposed by Cuenot 

 shows some similarities with my genealogical tree. Cuenot 

 speaks of the Neuromyaria instead of the Eumetazoa. In the 

 text, however (p. 25), he mentions the coelenterate stage ("Le 

 Neuromyaire Coelentere") which shows that he still preserves 

 the notion of the Coelenterata even if it is used purely formalis- 

 tically only and not taxonomically. 



The palaeozoologist A. W. Miiller (1958) has accepted to 

 a considerable degree the general division of the animal world 

 as it was proposed by Cuenot (1948), while at the same time 

 he also takes into consideration the coelenterate theory as it 

 has been proposed in my publications ("Unter Zugrundelegung 

 der Coelenteraten-Theorie von J. Hadzi" 1944, see Fig. 51). The 

 taxons or notions Coelenterata and Coelomata do not appear 

 in his graphic representation of the genealogical tree. The 

 acoelous Turbellaria appear in the middle of the stem 

 (Fig. 51); the Cnidaria and the Ctenophora are derived from 

 the Turbellaria. A. H. Miiller does not follow my suggestions 

 in his subsequent interpretation of the evolution; he prefers 

 to preserve the dichotomy of the Coelomata into the Pro- 

 tostomia and the Deuterostomia. Yet at the same time he 

 is undecided where and how these Deuterostomia should be 

 annexed. We can therefore see in his graphic representation the 

 *'left" branch hanging in the air. I think it is very important 

 that A. H. Miiller (1958:3) as a palaeozoologist finds that 

 Hadzi's theory (1944, 1949) does not stand in any opposition 



