50 QUARTERLY CHRONICLE. 
Buchholz places Hemioniscus in the family Bopyride (Epi- 
caride, Latr.). The anatomy and development of the female 
animal are fully described and illustrated by two coloured 
lates. 
et On Coscinosphera ciliosa, a new Radiolarian,”’ by Alex- 
ander Stuart, of Petersburg.—This Rhizopod is placed by the 
author in Hackel’s family Ethmospherida, which he divides 
into three sub-families :— 1. Coscinospheerida, containing this 
new genus Coscinosphera. 2. Heliospherida, with the ge- 
nera Cyrtidosphera, Ethmosphera, Heliosphera. 3. Arach- 
nospherida, comprising two genera, Diplosphera and Arach- 
nosphera. 'The characters of this new form are described, 
and its affinities discussed at length, and a plate illustrates 
the paper. 
© Apsilus lentiformis, a Rotifer,” by Elias Mecznikow.— 
The energetic author of this paper states that at Giessen, on 
the under side of leaves of Nymphea lutea, he met with large 
numbers of white lenticular bodies, which, on close exami- 
nation, proved to be Rotifers of a kind at present unknown. 
The adult female of this remarkable form appears, when ex- 
panded, to consist of two nearly equal circular sacs, the an- 
terior of which is open, forming the mouth, and is destitute 
of any ‘‘ wheel-apparatus ;” it possesses at the same time a 
mastax, well-marked ‘‘ water-vessels,” and reproductive or- 
gans. The young female differs totally from the adult in the 
possession of a ciliary apparatus, distinct eyes, and in its free 
habit of life. The adult male is, as in other Rotifers, quite 
unlike the female. He has a broad, ciliated, oral extremity, 
provided with eyes, and apparently a large pre-oral ganglion, 
whilst his body gradually tapers to a point posteriorly, pro- 
vided with a few cilia. The writer in the ‘ Zoological Record 
for 1865’ had no paper to report upon from the class Roti- 
fera: we congratulate him upon having here a very inte- 
resting one. Herr Mecznikow concludes his paper with some 
remarks on the affinities of Rotifera. In his paper “ On Icthy- 
dina, &c.,” transiated in the last number of this Journal, it 
will be remembered that he advocated the juxtaposition of 
the Chetonoti and Rotifers, the one to be called Gastrotricha, 
and the other Cephalotricha. At the same time, he appeared 
to object to the notion that the Rotifera (Cephalotricha) re- 
presented the larval stage of Annelida. In this paper he 
shows the strong resemblance which subsists between many 
Gastrotricha and Annelid-larva, and mentions his discovery 
at Gottingen of a Notommata (Rotifer) which had ventral 
cilia, as a proof of the relationship of Chetonoti and Ro- 
tifera. The genus Dinophilus, which is closely related to 
