8 
vus par Savensky et par Hansen dans la ventouse de Spheronella et de Choniostoma. 
Mais le premier de ces observateurs les a considerés comme de simples replis de la mem- 
brane; le second n’a pas vu la membrane et a pris les rayons pour des cils chitineux. Un 
examen trés attentif peut seul permettre d’éviter cette double erreur«. In spite of this well 
worded phrase, I must observe that they have not arrived at any better result than the 
predecessors they criticise. The membrane exists without folds and without »rayons chitineux<«, 
for these »rayons« are free hairs, »cils chitineux«, which originate at the base of the mem- 
brane, leaning freely against it on the outside, and in their own preparation these hairs, as 
usual, stand clearly out beyond the edge of the membrane. 
5) »La premiére patte machoire (mapi) est réduite a un long stylet droit aigu, 
beaucoup plus simple que l’organe correspondant du male de Spheronella« (p. 346). What 
they describe and figure here is only the terminal joint of the mavilla (according to my 
definition of this pair of limbs); it is not straight, but slightly curved, in their own type 
specimen, as well as in my drawing (pl. XII, fig. 3 k.). They have also overlooked the 
very large, long and broad basal joint, which appears distinct enough in their own type; if 
they had seen it, they would have found the missing resemblance with Spheronella, and it 
seems difficult to understand this gap in their observation. 
6) However, the climax of the incomprehensible is reached in their description of 
the maxillipeds. In their text they mention three joints, of which »le troisiéme se prolonge 
en une dent crochue«, yet this »dent« is drawn as a claw-like joint, which is well 
separated by an articulation and can be folded up towards the joint above it. But in 
examining their type specimen, I found that it agreed perfectly with my figure on pl. XII; 
what they describe and draw as the three first stout joints, indeed is only one single joint 
without a vestige of the two articulations they mention and figure. The »dent crochue« is 
really jointed on, as they figure it, but furthermore, in their own preparation it consists 
of two distinet joints, and I cannot have misunderstood their text, for their statement 
about the claw »a laquelle fait face un petit tubercule pointu« is fairly correct. So, 
seeing that their own type specimen agrees exactly with my illustrations, I leave it to 
the reader to compare their description, and especially their figure, with mine, and to find 
out how they can possibly have been so much mistaken; as for me, I am at a loss to 
understand it. 
I have two reasons for yiving this detailed demonstration of the mistakes committed 
by the authors in their description and figure of this male specimen. In the first place I 
wish to verify in detail the identity of their species with my own, secondly I wanted to be 
able to refer to this substantiation in the following pages, where I shall have to point out 
that in a later paper the same authors have made considerable mistakes in their description 
of two other forms, of which I have not seen their type specimen. 
The authors (p. 356) state their opinion that the family Choniostomatide is nearest 
akin to Chondracanthide, Lernzopodide and Ascomyzontide. I agree with them as to 
