102 MEMOIRS OP THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 



Along vnih his clear interpretation of the organization of these flagellates 

 he reversed the orientation used by earlier investigators and gave to the longi- 

 tudinal flagellum a posterior trailing position. He also figured the oblique 

 plane of division in the thecate group and division in encysted individuals of 

 Amphidiniuw,, without, however, noting the details of the division process. 



The period following the publication of Stein's monograph was a more 

 prolific one in the investigation of these organisms, both by the addition of new 

 genera and sj^ecies and by a more systematic classification of the group. 



Bergh (1881&) di^dded the order Cilioflagellata into two families, the 

 Adinida, containing Prorocentrum, and the Dinifera. The latter he divided 

 into three subfamilies, the first, Dinophyida, containing Binophijsis and Amplii- 

 dinium. the second, Peridinida, for Pendiniiim and related thecate species, and 

 the thii'd, Gymnodinida, for Gymnodinium, Hcmidinium, and Polijkrikos. He 

 thus did not recognize the close relation of Amphidinium and Gymnodinium, 

 but placed the former with the thecate genus, Dinophysis. 



In 1880-1882 Saville-Kent put forth an extensive review of this group, 

 adding two new species to the genus Gymnodinium. One of his most miportant 

 observations was the discovery that these small Gymnodinium with which he was 

 working were holozoic in nutrition. He also greatly enlarged the boimdaries 

 of the Cilioflagellata to include four families possessing both cilia and flagella, 

 Heteromastigidae, INIallomonadidae, Stephanomonadidae, and Trichonemidae, 

 which, he considered, intimately connected the Ciliata and Flagellata. These 

 groups were later recognized as having affinities neither with the dinoflagellates 

 nor mth the ciliates. 



The most notcAvorthy publication on this subject following Stein's was that 

 of Biitschli in Bronn's Khissen und Orduungen des Thicrreichs in 1885. He 

 pointed out the inadequacy of the earlier term Cilioflagellata and changed it 

 to the more ap^Dropriate name Dinoflagellata, recognizing the true nature of 

 the transverse flagellum, and gave an exhaustive review of the entire subject. 

 He had earlier (1873) added the genus Polykrikos to the group, though in his 

 first description of it he had described it as a ciliate infusorian. Bergh (1881?>) 

 placed it in the Cilioflagellata, and BiitschU accepted this allocation in his 

 discussion of the Dinoflagellata. 



Biitschli, as Bergh had done earlier, also disregarded the distinction between 

 the thecate and non-thecate forms by placing Gymnodinium and Pcridinium 

 in one family, the Peridinida, Amphidinium with the Dinophysida, and creating 

 a third family, Polydinida, for the genus Polykrikos. 



Pouehet contributed a series of articles on the dinoflagellates from 1883 to 

 1894, based on studies at Concarneau, on the French coast, adding a number 

 of new species to those already described. One of these was Oodinium pouch cti 

 {^Gymnodinium pulvisculus), parasitic on AppendicuJaria. The cycle of de- 

 velopment which he described for this species was the first attempt as yet made 

 to work out a complete life history of the dinoflagellates. 



