2 Prof. Allman on the Structure and Terminology of 
claim for their retention if any better be suggested, that I would 
now defend them, but it is because, while admitting the force of 
Prof. Huxley’s criticism in some points, I feel that in others he 
has not entirely understood my views, and that several of his 
objections to my terms are founded on a misapprehension of the 
sense in which I have used them. 
It is true that, since I first proposed a terminology of the 
parts in question, increased opportunities of observation have 
given me a clearer perception of the relations of these parts, and 
have somewhat modified my original views; but I see no reason 
to abandon the opinions I had expressed in some of my later 
publications. 
I fear indeed that I have been occasionally somewhat obscure 
in my definitions, and that the sense in which I wished to apply 
certain terms has thus been not at all times sufficiently appa- 
rent. The accompanying diagrams, however, will explain my 
views of the structure of the parts under consideration, and, far 
better than any mere description, will fix the meaning of my 
terminology. 
Fig, 1. Fig. 2. 
Y, 
Y 
Z, 
y) 
Y 
Y 
| 
me UL: 
oy 
Plans of typical Gonophore. 1. Containing sporosac. 2. Containin 
medusoid. The same kinds of shading and the same letters are adopte 
in the two figures, with the view of indicating the homologous parts. 
a, ectotheea; 5, mesotheca or umbrella;. ec, endotheca; d, spadix; 
e, cavity of spadix; c+d, manubrium ; f, generative elements; g, radiating 
canals; h, marginal tentacle; i, velum; k, peduncle; 7, ectoderm of coe- 
nosarc; m, endoderm of coenosarc; 2, somatic cavity. 
The gonophores are certain buds of a peculiar structure, de- 
stined for the formation and protection of the generative ele- 
ments. 
