] 1 8 Tf. M. Bale : 



(?) Not Lnfoea colcamfa, Agassiz, Mem. Mus. Comp. ZooL 

 Harvard, i. 1865. p. 122. %. li)(); Hargitt, X. Amev. 

 Nat.. XXXV.. 1901. p. :^)S7, fig. 24. 

 (?) Not //rhella calcarafa. Nutting. Bull. U.S. Fish. Conun., 



xix., 1901, ]). an.'i. 378, figs. 50. 94. 

 Not Jjdfoed c!/llii(/ric<i. von Lendenfeld. Proc. Lin. See. 

 N.S.W.. ix.. 1884. p. 912. pi. xl., figs. 4, 5. 



This is one of a series of closely-allied forms, the specific relation- 

 slrip of which is more or less doubtful. Pictet first classed together 

 the Lafoea cylindrica of von Lendenfeld, Hehella contorta and 

 //. cylindrafa of Marktanner-Turneretscher, and — somewhat doubt- 

 fully — Lafoea s-cnDdeim. Billard added to the list Lafoea calcarata^ 

 Agassiz. of which he regards all the others as synonyms. 



Pictet claims that he finds in Amboyna specimens, in the same 

 colony, hydrothecae coinciding exactly with the descriptions of the 

 three species which he unites (other than H. contorta), and his only 

 reason for doubt as to the identity of H . scandens arises from an 

 apparent difference in the gonophores. Regarding //. contorta he 

 remarks, referring to the flexuri' of the hydrothecae. " Nous ne pen- 

 sons pas cependant qu'il y ait lieu d'en faire une espece distincte, 

 car ce n'est evidemment qu'un phenomene pathologique provenant, 

 soit d'une mauvaise methode de conservation, soit d'une autre cause 

 inconnue." The assumption that the bent form of the hydrothecae 

 is due to bad preservation is perfectly groundless; it is the usual 

 and normal condition of this hydroid, which, however, does not 

 seem to me to diffei- more than varietally from //. srandens, 

 especially since Levinsen has shown that its gonangium is exactly 

 similar to that of the latter species. 



My experience differs from tliat of Pictet in regai'd to tlic ti-oplio- 

 soine. I have observed many colonies of //. i^candetis, and several 

 of //. contorta. but have not found any gi-eat variation in tlie 

 hydrothecae. And Pictet does not explain hoAv he was able to 

 satisfy himself tliat tlie characters of /.. ci/lindricd are such as to 

 justify its association with the other forms; Von Lfiidcnfeld's state- 

 ment that his species has the hydrothecae " large as in L. parali- 

 tica '■ seems to forbid siich association, iiml tlicri' is I'cuson to 

 believe that it is identical with a ti.ini to be (U'siiibed further on, 

 whfise size is such as to take it far out of the range of the species 

 or vaiiety observed by Pictet. 



Tlie gonosonu' of Pictet's sperimens is described thus :— " Gono- 

 theques allonges, recourbes en torme de coi'ne d'alxindaiice, a paruis 

 lisses, renfermant trois bourgeons medusoides en forme de cloche. 



