o08 NOTE OX TWO SPECIES OF CUCUMARIA KKOM I'LYMOUTH. 



Kegarding his specimen ' B,' Norman says : " Body-spicule like that of 

 A, but only a spicule here and there showing any nodulous growth, the 

 vast majority presenting a perfectly smooth surface ; nor are they so 

 universally confined to the number of four foramina, the spicules often 

 having an additional foramen at each end (i.e. four in a direct central 

 longitudinal line). ... No btdl-shaped spicules have been found in this 

 specimen, though they have been thorougldy sought for. Pedicels with 

 lateral spicules, some just as in A, but here more generally witii about 

 three small foramina at each end." Witli reference to his specimen 

 ' C,' Nomum writes as follows : " IJody-spicule exactly as in B, but here 

 I could not find a single one that was nodulous, and no bell-shaped 

 spicules. Pedicel-spicules as in B." 



From the above quotations it will be seen that while Norman is thus 

 describing in his specimens 'B' and 'C ' the body-spicule of a Cucumarian 

 which is evidently the same as my Cucumaria, sp. 2, he regards this 

 spicule, by reason of the presence of a few scattered nodulous spicules 

 in one of the preparations he examined, as a mere modification of that 

 type which he had met with in his specimen ' A,' and which is charac- 

 teristic of my Cucumaria, sp. 1. There can, however, be no doubt as to 

 the absolute distinctness of the two spicule types, and the explanation 

 of their apparent coexistence in Norman's specimen ' B ' is probably a 

 very simple one indeed ; namely, that a few spicules of the first species 

 were adhering to the surface of specimen ' B.' It must be remembered 

 that all Dr. Norman's specimens had been preserved in the same bottle * ; 

 and I have been able to prove experimentally that under such con- 

 dition it is a very easy matter for spicules from one individual to 

 become transferred to the mucus, enveloping the body of another 

 specimen ; in fact, I was myself very nearly misled in this manner. 

 It is also to be noted that Norman was unable to nuike out the upper 

 body deposits, which, as already remarked, are not very easily seen in 

 sp. 2, in either of his specimens ' !'. ' or ' C ' ; had he observed these he 

 would have seen immediately that he was dealing with a species different 

 to that of his specimen ' A.' 



Misled by the apparently enormous variability uf the spicules of 

 the specimens examined by him, Nornuxn was induced to unite witli 

 C. Montagu i a couple of other species, Cucumaria Zcfcvrei, Barrels, and 

 Sem2yeria Drumoiuli, Herouard, which are probably distinct, and also to 

 suggest the possible identity of still others : a suggestion which subse- 

 quent authors have not been slow to follow.f 



* I have been able to examine tlie original bottle, which is now in the British Museum, 

 and I ciin afFirni that it Lontaiiis both the species rcfcrrecl to in this paper. 



t Koehler (o) coiisidur.s that Noinian erred in uniting lloronard's Colochirus Le/evrei with 

 JJ. Montagui; but the evidence he adduces in support of this view is rather strange, and 

 shows that he cannot have read Norman's paper at all carefully, for he instances the 

 spectacle shajie of the spicules of Norman's Cucumaria MoiUayui, and their invariable want 

 of nodulation, as points of difference between it and C. Lcfevrei! 



