60 University of California Publications in Zoology [VOL. 13 



species which still hold good in that genus, but gives no figures, and 

 Schuberg (1888) gives neither a description nor a figure of the species 

 of Diplodinium to which he attached the name " dentatum." Stein 

 (1858) explicitly states that "der Wimpergiirtel der Riickseite fehlt 

 jedoch" in Entodinium. Schuberg (1888) founds Diplodinium upon 

 a ciliate with a dorsal membranelle zone. There is, therefore, no ques- 

 tion but that he had before him as the species upon which he founded 

 his new genus a specimen different from Entodinium dentatum Stein 

 and correctly referable to his new genus Diplodinium because it had 

 a dorsal membranelle zone. Therefore E. dentatum Stein and Diplo- 

 dinium dentatum Schuberg are two different species in different 

 genera and both names are valid, although Schuberg 's opinion as to 

 the identity of the two species implied in his statement above quoted 

 and in his use of Stein's specific name is in error. This decision is in 

 accord with the usage of Eberlein (1895). The question as to the 

 type species of Diplodinium is a very complicated one. It seems wisest, 

 however, in view of the subsequent history of the case, to accept Schu- 

 berg 's D. dentatum as later described and figured by Fiorentini (1889) 

 as the type species. Fiorentini (1889) utilized Schuberg 's name for 

 this inadequately defined and still less adequately established genus 

 and assigns to it nine species, which he figures and describes as Diplo- 

 dinium vortex, D. maggii, D. bursa, D. dentatum Schuberg, D. denti- 

 culatum, D. ecaudatum, D. caudatum, D. rostratum and D. cattanei. 

 To these Eberlein (1895) added a new species which he named Diplo- 

 dinium caudatum, thus making ten species described for this genus. 



Diplodinium vortex, however, as is pointed out by Eberlein (1895), 

 is not a member of the genus Diplodinium at all, but is identical with 

 Ophryoscolex purkynjei Stein (1858). There is some question also 

 regarding the specific standing of D. maggii Fiorentini.^ Eberlein 

 accepts it with some hesitation. He says of it: "Es ist ziemlicb 

 gross, und diese Eigenschaft, besonders aber die unverhaltnismassige 

 Breite unterscheidet es von Diplodinium bursa. Es bleibt zweifelhaft, 

 ob es auf Grund dieser einen Eigenschaft berichtigt ist, Diplodinium 

 maggii als selbstandige Art zu betrachten, oder ob es Diplodinium 

 bursa zuzurechen ist. ' ' I have found it to be, however, in my material, 

 a perfectly well-defined species. 



We also call attention to the fact that D. rostratum Fiorentini is 

 merely an individual D. caudatum, described shortly after transverse 

 division, and so drops into the synonymy of the latter. This leaves 

 to the credit of Fiorentini seven species of the genus Diplodinium, all 



