335 



Michaelsen, W., Über Chylusgelüßsysleme bei Envhylraeidm. Mit 1 Tuf. in: 



Arch. f. mikrosk. Anat, 28. Bd. 8. Hi't. p. 293— 304. — Abslr. in: 



Journ. R. Miciosc. Soc. London, 1887. P. 1. p. 92. 

 {ünchholzia n. g. für Enchytr. aj}pen<Uciclutm Buchh.) 

 Drago, U., Un parassita della Telphusa fluviatilis, \ Epitdjìhìisa catanensis, 



nuovo genere d'Oligochete. in: Bull. Soc. Entomol. Ital. Ann. 19. Trim. 



1./2. p. 81—83. 

 Lang, A., Gastrohlasta Raffaelei. Abstr. in: Journ. R. Microsc. Soc. London, 18'>7. 



P. 1. p. 97—98. 



(Jena. Zeitschr. f. Nat.) — s. Z. A. No. 235. p. G05. 

 Oamerano, Lor., Ricerche intorno alle specie italiane del genere Gordius. Con 



1 tav. in: Atti R. Accad. Se. Torino, Voi. 22. Disp. 2. p. 145—175. 



— Riassunto, in: Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. comp. Torino, Voi. 2. No. 20„ 



(4p.) 



(9 n. sp. [4 n. sp.]) 



Osservazioni sui caratteri diagnostici dei Gordius e sopra alcune specie 



di Gordufs d'Europa, in : Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. Comp, Torino, Voi. 2. 

 No. 24. (10 p.) 



II. Wissenschaftliche Mittheiluiigen. 



1. Errata in my paper on the Systematic Position and Classification of 



Sponges'. 



By R. V. Lendenfeld. 



eingeg. 22. Mai 1887. 



In this paper there occur, besides ordinary printer's errors a few 

 mistakes, which wouki, if left uncorrected, create some confusion. I 

 therefore enumerate the three most important ones of these, here : 



1) In the definitions of the group Spongiae and in other places 

 the term «branching canalsystem« has been used. This is a wrong 

 rendering of the term »durchgehendes Canalsystem« in my manu- 

 script. 



2) The hexact spicule-term iiPimiulus«. which appears in that 

 paper is wrong. It should he yyPinuhfsa (from Pinus) . 



3) i)Monaxouida» on p. 583, 1. 16 should be ì)Monaxonùm which is 

 different from the Monaxonida in the sense of S oil as, Den d y and 

 other authors. 



The editor or the gentleman to whom the reading of the proofs 

 of my paper was entrusted made alterations in it, some of which I did 

 not approve of. These were however persisted in, although I protested 

 repeatedly against these alterations in consecutive proofs. I must there- 

 fore disclaim any responsibility for those parts of my paper. 



It was no doubt a difficult task for the editor to read the proofs of 



1 Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 1886. part 4. 



