468 Mtscel/aneous. 



will be a valuable aid to identification. The concluding chapter deals 

 with the best methods of collecting and preserving specimens, and 

 gives Tvithin a small compass a considerable amount of useful practical 

 information. A short " Bibliographj- " is followed by a " Glossary," 

 in which we note several rather serious errors. The " palpocil " is 

 defined as a " collection of stinging cells ; " it is really a simple 

 tactile organ. The name " polypide " is referred to the alimentary 

 zooid of the Hydroida, and " polypite" to that of the Polyzoa ; the 

 reverse would be true. " Trophosome '' is not (as stated) a " Hy- 

 droid colony," but the assemblage of nutritive zooids in such a 

 colony. " Operculum " is defined as a " protective covering or lid," 

 which no doubt it is, as any dictionary would show. But the student 

 wants to know its technical use, and should have been told that it 

 is the valve which closes the orifice (oral valve) of the Polyzoa. 

 The definition of " zooid " as " an alimentary or reproductive polyp " 

 is much too limited. The avicularium and vibraculum are equally 

 zooids. It woiild have been better to follow Huxley — " a term ap- 

 plied to the individuals of compound organisms." 



The peculiar significance of the term " sporosac " is not indicated 

 by calling it a " sac-shaped gonophore." It is, in fact, the genera- 

 tive sac — the sac in which the generative elements are developed. 



The publication of the present elementary work may be taken as 

 an indication of a somewhat widely diffused taste for the study of 

 marine zoology, and we trust that it may not only gratify that taste 

 in its own measure and degree, but lead many to desire more than it 

 can give them, and to seek a fuller knowledge of the subject at 

 other sources. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



A few Words in Answer to Mr. Distant' s ^'' Eemarks " on the Genus 

 Terias. By Aethtjk G. Bittlee. 



MrcH as I dislike unnecessary discussion on points which do not 

 possess any " scientific value," 1 must call the attention of lepido- 

 pterists to the fact that Mr. Distant, whilst apparently answering 

 my statements, has in almost every case avoided the point at issue, 

 and therefore has laid himself open to the very charge of " misrepre- 

 sentation " which he asks me to own to ; this, m tJie interest of 

 science, it is necessary to prove, since it affects the identification not 

 of what Mr. Distant calls varieties, but of what he, in common 

 with myself, would admit to be representatives of different groups. 



Mr, Distant's explanation of his lajosxts calami, for such I am 

 willing to believe it to have been, is ingenious but not admissible : 

 that he did not carefully consider his words when he called a species 

 (not a " species '') a variety, I can well understand ; but that he, in 

 a certain sense, believed that the said species was more than a variety, 

 is evidenced by the constant use of dubious terms throughout his 

 work, such as " new species or variety,'" " this species is of a varietal 



