On a New Melicerta. By Dr. C. T. Hudson. 
231 
There only remains the question as to whether or no it is a 
newly discovered animal. Now Ehrenberg’s figure is egregiously 
unlike M. tyro. The antennae of Tubicolaria naias are short, 
those of M. tyro are very long ; and while the trochal disk of the 
former is barely more than the width of the body, that of M. tyro 
is at least three times as wide. 
Moreover Ehrenberg states that his Tubicolaria naias is in his 
opinion the adult form of Dutrochet’s Rotifer albivestitus. Now 
I have read Dutrochet’s paper which appeared in 1812 in the 
‘ Annales du Museum d’Histoire Naturelle,” and while his written 
description is very vague, his figures are so bad that it is impossible 
to determine anything from them. He however distinctly states 
that the antennae of Rotifer albivestitus were much shorter than 
those of Melicerta ringens, while those of M. tyro are very much 
longer. To sum up then, I think it not unlikely that Ehrenberg 
would have called M. tyro a Tubicolaria, but I do not think that 
either he or Dutrochet ever saw it : — and it is clear that whether 
they did or no, it has no right to a different generic title from 
that of Melicerta ringens ; for if the difference in the tube is to be 
held sufficient to constitute a new genus, then must Melicerta 
jpillula, Mr. Cubitt’s new Melicertan, have a new generic name. 
1 ought to mention that Mr. Bolton tells me he found this new 
rotifer some tw r o years ago in his prolific pond at Stourbridge. 
