N T G E N Y. 



Historical Review . 

 Goette in his well knorvn work on the embryology of Aurelia 

 and Gotyloi'riiza (1887) attacked the previous work of Glaus 

 (1883). In 1890 Glaus replied by an article embodying the re- 

 sults of more recent research on Gotylcrhiza. In this some 

 of Goette's conclusions are confinneu., notably the one as to 

 the origin of the septal muscles, and the ectodennal nature of 

 the lining of the proboscis, but in general the author main- 

 tains his previous views. This paper has been followed quite 

 recently by a pamphlet from Goetta (1891) in which, instead of 

 presenting any new facts, he makes an elaborate attempt to prove 

 from Glaus' o^vn words that in almost all points Glaus has re- 

 ceded (1890)from his former position (1883) and now, while re- 

 ally agreeing with him, seeks to mask this by arabiguity of lan- 

 guage and by casting reflection upon him. The chief differ- 

 ence between these two authors is that Goette regards the scyph- 

 istoma as essentially ar actinian, while Glaus compares it to 

 a hydroid. Besides this Gootte uelieves the entoderm to a- 

 rise by multipolar immigration of the blastula cells, the sep- 

 tal funnels of the scyphistoma to pass into the subgenital cav- 



20 - 



