POSTSCRIPT II. CAULOPIIACUS ARCTICL'Sà SYMPAGELLA GRACILIS. 121 



These agree almost completely with those of A. johnsloni in 

 general appearance but especially in the character of the pinular 

 ray ; whereas, they, as compared with the same of C. vaUdum, 

 present (to use F. E. Schulze's words) "eine auffällige Differenz" 

 in the development of the lateral spines. It is clear what this 

 points to. Perhaps another not unimportant difference in the 

 spiculation is the presence in C. validinn of prostal needles in 

 tufts, which are totally wanting in the new species as well as in 

 A. johnsloni. Further taking into our consideration the occurrence 

 in the new sj^ecies of bud-like prominences on the wall which 

 may lead to the formation of such incompletely individualized 

 persons as are known in Atilascus, and of a distinct, branched 

 stalk known to be common in the nearest allies of that genus, 

 I can but think the evidence is decidedly in favor of considerinoj 

 the new species to be nearer to A. johnstoni than to Calycosonia 

 validimi. If the two genera are to be kept separate, it should 

 rather be placed under Aulascus. But since I hold this genus 

 as unitable with Sympa gella (p. 96), I should accept F. E. 

 Schulze's new species into my system under the name of 

 Sympagella gracilis (F. E. Sch.). 



With this change, the diagnosis of the genus Sympagella as 

 given by me in this Contribution (pp. 96, 113) requires alteration 

 only in so ftir as the oxyhexaster should not now be excluded 

 from among the hexasters of the genus. The passage concerning 

 these should be made to read " Besides discohcxasters, ivhich are 

 sometimes accompanied ivith oxyhexasiers, plumicomcs are always 

 vresent.^^ The family diagnosis given on pp. 84 and 112 may 

 remain as it is. 



There is no denying the fact that Sympagella. gracilis brings 

 the Caulophacids {Caidophaciis and Sympagella), whether as a 



