BY E. F. HALLMANN. 339 



mentions that one of them "appears to be a portion of the 

 figured type of the variety"; the fact is, however, that 

 although the specimens show many points of agreement with 

 Lendenf eld's description, yet as regards external features, in 

 one respect at least, they are absolutely incompatible with that 

 description; for Lendenf eld states that the oscula "are scat- 

 tered and of varying size, 2 to omm. in diameter," whereas 

 the specimens have no oscula other than the openings at the 

 extremities of their tubular branches. It is impossible to sup- 

 pose that such a mistake could arise through inaccuracy of 

 observation, and it is equally difficult to believe that the spe- 

 cimens are not in some way connected with the species they 

 purport to represent — since (i.) they accord with the descrip- 

 tion as far as skeletal features are concerned; (ii.) they occur 

 in the collection under several independent labels all bear- 

 ing the same name; and (iii.) a fragment from the British 

 Museum labelled ''HaUchondria rubra var. tefieUa" belongs 

 to the same species. The only explanation seems to be that 

 Lendenfeld's descriptions of H. rubra and its variety were 

 derived each from two different species — the second para- 

 graphs of the descriptions, relating to internal features, from 

 specimens of Hemitedania anonymu; and the first paragraphs, 

 having reference to external features, from specimens of some 

 species (or, it may be, two species) quite distinct. What the 

 latter species may have been, I am unable to suggest, and it 

 is scarcely of importance to know: the name Ilalichotidria 

 rubra, including the varietal name digkata, must be consi- 

 dered to belong rather to the species exemplified by the type- 

 specimens, and hence to be a synonym of H eimtedania aiiony- 

 ma. (Vide Appendix). 



In connection with //. rubra var. d'ujlfata, conclusive proof 

 is forthcoming that an additional serious mistake was made. 

 Contrary to the statement of Whitelegge quoted above, the 

 figure given in the Catalogue (Pl.ii., fig.l) is obviously not 

 illustrative of Hemitedaula anonywa, and at first I therefore 

 thought it must portray the other species implied in the 



