CAULOtUACIDJî. 83 



be called complete, and probably nobody will hold it, by itself, 

 as a character adequate to base a family on. In all other respects 

 the two genera in question are both quite like Eossellids ; the 

 somewhat special development shown by the freely projecting ray 

 of their hexactinic gastralia is of no moment, since the same 

 feature is not infrequently observable in Rossellids of unquestion- 

 able status (e. g., Rhahdocalyptus nodulosus F. E, Sch., Rh. teuer 

 F. E. ScH., Rh. mirabilis F. E. Sch., etc.). With respect to 

 Calycosaccîis, it has even been stated by F. E. Schulze the 

 deseriber, ('99, p. 100), that he would not have hesitated to 

 regard it as identical with the Rossellid genus Aulosaccus Ij., if 

 only the unpaired ray of its pentactinic dermalia had been direct- 

 ed proximad instead of distad. So that, while the two genera 

 seem unitable to the Rossellidge, they may, for the reason already 

 advanced, be kept sej)arate from the group that I have called the 

 Caulophacidœ. 



Galycosoma (with the single species, C validum. F. E. Sch.) 

 had probably best be received into the subfamily Lanuginellinse, 

 espesially on account of the strobiloplumicome present in it. 

 Whereas, Calycosaccus (likewise with a single species, C. rjimai) 

 is to be placed in the subfamily Eossellinœ in direct proximity 

 to, if not in amalgamation into Aulosaccus. I may here add 

 that to the same subfamily should also belong Hyalascus and 

 Asconema. The three genera herewith referred to the Rossellinœ 

 show no sign of specially close bonds of relationship between 

 them, w^hen considered in relation to other Rosselline genera. 



But to return to the Caulophacidœ. Its near affinity to the 

 Euplectellidœ is undeniable, so much so that Saccocalyx pedun- 

 culata F. E. Sch., now recognized as an Euplectellid, was at first 



