Miscellaneous. 391 
that does not agree in the slightest degree with the generic character, 
which is that of a cylindrical branched sponge. I can only sup- 
pose that they had intended to figure the calcareous one and forgot 
it, and then somehow mixed up the two sponges together; at 
any rate, there is no doubt that by the law of priority the name of 
Alcyoncellum belongs to the calcareous Australian sponge, as, I think, 
Dr. Bowerbank must admit. 
To add to the confusion, M. Milne-Edwards, in the second edi- 
tion of Lamarck’s work, published in 1834, seeing that the figures 
and the generic characters in MM. Quoy and Gaimard’s work did not 
agree, instead of giving a new generic name to the sponge figured, 
gave a new character to the genus Alcyoncellum, evidently taken 
from MM. Quoy and Gaimard’s plate. Thus he lost the credit of 
establishing the genus that was afterwards named Luplectella, 
though in fact he did establish it under a name used for a dif- 
ferent sponge. 
On an aceidental case of Moneeciousness in Coelebogyne. 
By H. Bartton. 
The author showed to the French Academy some monecious 
branches of Calebogyne ilicifola, Sm., bearing at the same time 
female flowers, ripe and entire fruits, fruits open to give issue to 
perfectly formed seeds, and, at their upper part, thousands of male 
flowers with the anthers full of pollen. The specimens formed part 
of a collection of Kuphorbiacee sent from Australia for determination 
by Dr. F. Muller, and were collected at Rockhampton in the wild 
state. 
The author remarks that the shght value of the genus Celebo- 
gyne, and the frequency of such anomalies in other genera to which 
its species might be referred (Cladodes, Alchornea, Aparisthmium), 
had led him to predict that, sooner or later, cases of hermaphrodism 
or monceciousness would be detected in this plant. This prediction 
was already fulfilled as to hermaphrodite flowers. The present de- 
monstration of the existence of accidentally moncecious flowers 
gives, in his opinion, the last blow to the doctrine of parthenoge- 
nesis.—OCOomptes Rendus, May 4, 1868, p. 856. 
Note on a Double Egg of a Fowl. 
To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 
GrntLemeN,—A friend, residing in the Cuddupah district, in the 
Madras Presidency, has sent me a boiled fowl’s egg which contains 
a smaller egg with a shell. It had been cooked for his breakfast. 
Eggs with a double yelk I have several times seen; but I have 
never seen or heard before of a perfect egg inside another; it there- 
fore appears desirable that it should be recorded in the ‘ Annals.’ 
I am, Gentlemen, 
. Very truly yours, 
J. Mircnett, Captain. 
Ootacamund, Sept. 1, 1868. Sup. of the Madras Museum. 
