SYNOPSIS OF THE ROTATOEIA. 41 



DIURELLA SULCATA (Jennings). 



Eattulus sulcatus Jennings, Bull. Michigan Fish Comm., No. 3, 1894, p. 20, fig. 8. 

 Rattulus crypiopus Bilfingeu, Jahresh. Naturk. Wiirltemberg, vol. 50, 1894, p. 51. 

 Diurella sulcata Jennings, Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., vol. 22 (for 1902), 1903, p. 316, 

 pi. 2, figs. 24-26; pi. 13, figs. 113, 118, 119. 



DIURELLA TENUIOR (Gosse). 



? Ileterognathus notommata Schmarda, Neue wirbell. Thiere, 1859, vol. 1, p. 53, pi. 



12, fig. 108. 

 Ccelopus tenuior Gosse, Hudson and Gosse, Rotifera, 1880, vol. 2, p. 68, pi. 20, fig. 19. 

 Mastigocerca flectocaudatus PIilgendorf, Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 31, 1899, 



p. 119, pi. 8, fig. 6. 

 Diurella tenuior Jennings, Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., vol. 22 (for 1902), 1903, p. 308, 



pi. 1, figs. 7-10. 



DIURELLA TIGRIS (Miiller). 



Trichoda tigris Muller, Anim. Infus., 1786, p. 206, pi. 29, fig. 8. 



Diurella tigris Boky de St. Vincent, Diet. Class. Hist. Nat., vol. 5, 1824, p. 568. 



Trichocerca tigris Blainville, Diet. iSci. Nat., vol. 60, 1830, p. 150. 



Notommata tigris Ehrenberg, Abh. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (for 1833), 1834,' p. 215. 



Plagiognatha tigris Dujardin, Hist. Nat. Zooph., 1841, p. 652= Notommata tigris Ehr- 

 enberg, which Dujardin says is not Trichoda tigris Muller. 



Heterognathus maa-odactylus Schmarda, Neue wirbell. Thiere, 1859, vol. 1, p. 52, 

 pi. 12, fig. 105. 



Scaridium tigris Schoch, Mikr. Thiere Siissw.-Aquar., 1868, p. 30, pi. 7, fig. 6. 



Monommata tigris Bartsch, Jahresh. Naturk. Wiirttemberg, vol. 26, 1870, p. 344. 



Rattulus tigris Gosse, Hudson and Gosse, Rotifera, 1886, vol. 2, p. 65, pi. 20, fig. 13. 



Jennings accuses Bory de St. Vincent of confusing Diurella tigris 

 (Muller) and Diurella porceUus (Gosse), This is absolutely without 

 justification; Bory de St. Vincent never "mixed" animals; mixing 

 names was his specialty. As far as can be judged from his writings, 

 he never saw a rotifer. He claims (Enc. Meth., Zooph., Introduction 

 to Art. Microscopiques) to have used the microscope for 25 years, 

 and to have refound nearly all of Miiller's species in the neighbor- 

 hood of Paris. Remembering that Muller described only about 75 

 species of rotifers, it is taxing one's credulity to believe that anybody 

 could find all, or nearly all, of these (including marine species? at 

 Paris?) without adding a smgle new species. He did add one new 

 name, on the strength of his own observation, Testudinella argula, 

 but, according to Ehrenberg, this was a larval Copepod. His "new 

 names" are based on descriptions and figures by Joblot (forsooth!), 

 Bosc, Baker, etc.; he also gave new specific names (probably "more 

 descriptive"!) to the majority of Miiller's species. 



The confusion of Diurella tigris and Diurella forceUus was started 

 by Eyferth and added to by Eckstein and Tessin, who both appear 

 to have depended to a large extent upon E3^ferth. It should be added 

 that Jennings did not have access to Bory de St. Vincent's publica- 

 tions at the time he revised the Rattulidse. 



