Remarks by Mr. H. J. Carter. 389 
on the membranous sarcode, as in the British-Museum speci- 
men (in the way described by Mr. Carter), they have been 
drawn in to the arms of the other spicules by the contraction 
of the sarcode. 
Remarks by Mr. CARTER. 
The specimen of Labaria hemispherica above described and’ 
figured by Mr. Higgin is fortunately so well preserved that 
there can be no doubt of its being in a natural state, viz. un- 
affected by destructive influences or tampering of any kind, 
as that which I described belonging to the British Museum 
(‘Annals,’ 1873, ser. 4, vol. xi. p. 275); hence it serves well 
to correct that description. 
That “cat’s-whisker-like ’ groups of spicules do project 
from the sides of Labaria hemispherica as normal appendages 
there can now be no doubt ; and that the anchoring-spicules 
with spined shafts are abnormal may be inferred from their 
entire absence in Mr. Higgin’s specimen. We must therefore 
conclude that the latter belonged to the “fraudulent tuft” 
of anchoring-spicules from Meyertna claveformis, which had 
been thrust into the base of the British-Museum specimen. 
And for this I am well prepared, seeing that in my figures 
of the supposed anchoring-spicules with spined shaft from 
Labaria hemispherica, and the real one from Meyerina clave- 
Sormis respectively that [have figured (‘Annals,’ 1873, vol. xii. 
pp. 467, 468, pl. xiv. figs. 1 & 3), it is stated and shown that 
the differences between these two spicules are “ too slight 
for specific distinction.” 
Further, it now appears to me that, while the shafts of the 
anchoring-spicules of Labaria hemispherica and of the genus 
Rossella are all smooth, those of Hyalonema &e. are all spined ; 
and that the latter only appear to be sometimes smooth 
from the spines being continued upwards from the free end 
for a less distance in some than in others, whereby when the 
spined ends are broken off (which is often the case) there is an 
appearance of two forms, viz. one spined and the other 
smooth. Hence the mistake. 
EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES. 
PLATE XXII. 
Fig. 1. Hyalonema cebuense, Higgin, after a photograph by Robinson and 
Thompson, rather less than half the actual size: a, the investing 
latticework ; 6, portion denuded of the latticework, which has 
been destroyed by a parasitic fungus attacking the sarcode which 
supported and connected the spicules. 
