60 "endeavour*' scientific bebulj 



Out' or two specimens were found growing on some of the 

 larger Hydroids, and not differing in any important particular 

 from the typo. 



In some examples of this species, which 1 have examined since 

 my descriptions were published, 1 find the opening of the 

 hydrotheca, as seen in front view, less narrowed than T have 

 figured it. In most cases however, the sides of the hydrotheca-. 

 owing to their excessive delicacy, are more or less hent or 

 distorted, even when they have never been dried, so that it is not 

 easy t<> Hud specimens which have kept their shape perfectly. 

 But 1 have not in any case found the aperture distinctly circular, 

 as in K. mirabilis. 



Torrey retains for this species and K. mi nihil is, on grounds 

 which I consider untenable, the generic name of DijjJocheilus, 

 Allrnan, in which he lias been followed by several other observers ; 

 while Billard on the other hand has argued in favour of relegating 

 them to the genus Plumularia. 



Torrey's remarks are as follows — " According to Jickeli's 

 figure the hydroid for which he erects the genus is an eleuthero- 

 plean plumularian — probably a Plumularia — with nematophores 

 broken away. The frequent absence of nematophores in species 

 which characteristically possess them and the absence of any 

 other distinguishing characters remove the slender claims to 

 priority over Diplocheilus which have been made for this 

 inadequate genus." 



With the statement that Jickeli's figure represents an 

 Eleutheroplean I fully agree, but I do not infer, as Torrey 

 apparently does, that K. producta is therefore not referable to 

 the genus ; on the contrary, I am now convinced that the species 

 is not only an Eleutheruplean but a true Plumularia, unless the 

 characters assigned by Jickeli to his genus suffice for its 

 separation. 



The further statement that the figure represents a specimen 

 with the nematophores broken off is unwarranted. In reality 

 all the species which are known to agree with Jickeli's in 

 possessing naked sarcostyles agree with it also in being unpro- 

 vided with lateral sarcotheca . 



The remark that "the absence of any other distinguishing 

 characters " (that is other than the absence of the lateral 

 nematophores), removes the claim to priority of the genus is 

 equally unfortunate. Other characters are not absent, indeed 

 it is precisely on these other characters, namely the possession of 



