Japanese Tricladida Maricola. ^g. 



they agree with one another in some respect^^. The procedure of 

 BöHMiG, in my opinion, seems to me far more rational than that 

 of WiLHELMi, so tliat I do not hesitate to abide by the scheme 

 which divides the Procerodidge of Böhmig farther into three sub- 

 famihes — Euprocerodinse, Cercyrinœ and Micropharynginse — for 

 convenience' sake. 



Now then, as already recorded, an attempt was made by 

 Böhmig to divide the Bdellom-idse into two subfamilies, making 

 use of distinctive characters which, to my mind, appear to be of 

 sufficient magnitude to isolate those subfamilies as distinct families 

 — Uteriporidse and Bdellouridse — co-ordinate with the Procerodidse. 

 In this respect the procedure- of Wilhelmt seems to me ver}'- 

 reasonable. As an arrangement of all the previously recorded 

 genera, subject, of course, to modification in the future, I would 

 propose for the present to classify them according to a new system 

 as follows : — 



1. Fam. Procerodidie. 



i. Subfam. Euprocerodinte Boiimig. 

 Procerodes Girard. 

 Stummeria Böhmig. 

 Ectoplana Kaburaki.^^ 

 ii. Subfam. Cercyrinœ Böhmtg. 

 Cercyra O. Schmidt. 

 Cerbussowia Wilhelmi. 

 Sabussoivia Böhmig. 

 iii. Subfam. Micropharynginse Böhmig. 

 MicTO'pharijnx Jägerskiöld. 



2. Fam. Uteriporida-. 



liter ipor us Bergendal. 



3. Fam. Bdellouridjc. 



Bdelloura Leidy. 

 Syncoelidium Wilhelmi. 

 Synsij)hon'mm Hallez, 

 Some principal characters of distinction between all the above 



1) As to the systematic position oi the genus Ectoplana I have already stated in detail in 

 my fo n!.er paper (33). 



