igoy.] Records of the hidian Museum. 147 



As a rule the processes at one end were larger than those at the 

 other. I have not seen more than nine or less than three pro- 

 cesses together. Each series was enveloped in a delicate mem- 

 brane. The central capsule of the statoblast was almost circular 

 and occupied a considerable area as compared with the air-cells, 

 being relatively larger, so far as can be judged from Carter's figure 

 {Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3), iii, p. 341, pi. 8, 1859), than that of 

 Hyatt's Indian species. The colour of the capsule was dark 

 brown, the air-cells being yellowish. Rousselet {Journ. Quekett 

 Microsc. Club, 1904, p. 49) has lately placed Pectinatella carteri, 

 which was found by Carter in Bombay, in a new genus {Lopho- 

 podella) created for an East African species, L. thomasi ; Carter 

 having originally assigned the former to the genus Lophopus. One 

 of the most important characters of Rousselet's new genus, and 

 indeed the only one on which he had to rely as regards the Indian 

 species, was the nature of the processes at the extremities of the 

 statoblast ; but the absence of these processes from some stato- 

 blasts of the Himalayan species and their presence on others, forms 

 a good ground for keeping both this species and the Bombay one 

 in the genus to which Carter assigned the latter. 



The Himalayan form agrees in every other respect with defi- 

 nitions of Lophopus ; but Carter states that the specimens he 

 found in Bombay did not have, as far as he could see, the synoe- 

 cium extending to the base of the colony. Unless or until fresh 

 specimens are foimd which prove divergent from the genus in 

 other respects, I would therefore call the species Lophopus carteri 

 (Hyatt). Statoblasts agreeing with Carter's description have 

 been found in East Africa and it may therefore be expected that 

 the species, having a wide range, will be rediscovered before 

 very long. The Himalayan statoblasts differ from those from 

 Bombay in the irregularity or absence of the terminal processes 

 and the relatively greater size of the central capsule, while the 

 syncecium of the colony appears to be more highly developed. I 

 think it will be well to name the Kumaon form Lophopus ledenfeldi 

 var. himalayanus, as it differs from the typical Australian variety 

 in the following points : {a) the tentacles are not so numerous ; (&) 

 the statoblast is more irregular in outline ; (c) the central capsule 

 is almost circular instead of being rather elongate ; and {d) term- 

 inal processes bearing curled, blunt hooks sometimes occur on the 

 statoblasts. Another seemingly important difference, namely, the 

 relatively poor development of the ectocyst in the type speci- 

 men, may very well be artificial, for structures of the kind, how- 

 ever carefully they may be preserved, invariably shrink in spirit. 

 The fact that the colony described from Australia was more com- 

 plex and larger than those I found in Bhim Tal, may be simply a 

 question of age or nutrition. 



Rousselet {op. cit.) has proposed to put t. ledenfeldi in Ju- 

 lien's genus Hyalinella, the status of which is very doubtful, my 

 own opinion being that it is unnecessary to separate this genus 

 from Plumatella. If Kraepelin {Deutschen Siisswasser-Bryozoen, 



