Prof. Allman on the Hydroid Zoophytes. 143 



dccipiens of Dujardin is undoubtedly distinct from the species 

 of the present note, it is difficult to find, in Dujardin's figure 

 and description of Sthenyo, any character which can be justly 

 considered as pointing to a specific distinction between the two 

 Medusae. It is probable that a more exact comparison with the 

 living animal would result in the detection of differences not 

 now apparent ; but it is also by no means impossible that we 

 should fail in the discovery of any such difference, and then we 

 should have two Medusre with characters specifically identical 

 proceeding from two polypes with characters specifically di- 

 stinct, — a fact, it will be at once seen, of great importance in its 

 bearing on the general question of specific distinction. 



At all events, it is quite certain that the value of the dif- 

 ferences between the Medusse of zoophytes is by no means ne- 

 cessarily parallel with that between the zoophytes themselves. 

 An illustration of this remark is afforded by the Medusa of a 

 Coryne which I described in the last Number of the f Annals/ 

 under the name of C. Briareus, and which is assuredly a true 

 Coryne, though its Medusa is at least generically distinct from 

 that just described as produced by C. eximia*. 



* Since the appearance, in last month's Number of the ' Annals,' of my 

 note containing a description of Coryne Briareus, Dr. Strethill Wright 

 has stated to me his belief that C. Briareus is the same zoophyte as 

 one already provisionally described under the name of Tubularia implexa 

 by Mr. Alder, who had not seen the polypes. To Mr. Alder's Tubularia 

 implexa Dr. Wright had referred a Coryne which he describes in the July 

 Number of the ' Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal' under the name 

 of C. implexa. I am not, however, prepared to admit the identity of 

 Coryne Briareus with either of these zoophytes, though Dr. Wright has 

 allowed me an opportunity of inspecting specimens of his Coryne preserved 

 in spirit. 



It has so happened that Dr. Wright and I have been simultaneously 

 engaged in the investigation of some portions of the invertebrate fauna of 

 the Fhtb of Forth ; and though our explorations have been conducted 

 quite independently of one another, it is not to be wondered at, that, 

 working as we have been over the same zoological ground, identical 

 species should occasionally be discovered by both of us. This will explain 

 how it has occurred that two other zoophytes which I have described as 

 new in the paper just referred to, namely Manicella fusca and Euclendrium 

 baccatum, have been simultaneously described by Dr. Wright in the same 

 month's Number of the ' Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal,' — for 

 I have no doubt of the identity with these species of Dr. Wright's Bimeria 

 vestita and Garveia nutans. Dr. Wright's paper, however, purports to be 

 a report of a communication made by him to the Royal Physical Society 

 of Edinburgh in November 1858. Under these circumstances, I am quite 

 willing to yield the priority of discovery and the right of naming to Dr. 

 Wright, without, however, thereby admitting that claims of priority are 

 necessarily valid when based only on communications to Societies which 

 preserve upon their records no authenticated abstract of the facts com- 

 municated, and wbich defer publication until man}' months after the date 

 claimed for the transaction. Such a practice, at the best, is sure to be 



