40 Prof. Allman on Carduella cyathiformis. 
42-62. The Fichtelian species. Comparing the list of the 
Foraminifera figured in the Tabl. Encye. Méth. with those cata- 
logued and briefly described in the Hist. Anim. s. Vert. vol. vii., 
we find that Lamarck had considered and reconsidered their 
relations to each other and to the rest of the minute shells which 
he thought to be microscopic Cephalopods, and that consequently 
he had laboured to arrange them in a systematic form. That 
he failed in doing so is not to be wondered at, having no light 
as to their real relationships. Some of the terms applied by 
Lamarck to the Fichtelian species and varieties are serviceable, 
although his notions of the generic groupings were wrong. He 
did not advance beyond Fichtel and Moll in the definition of 
the species ; indeed at first he retrograded in that respect, giving 
specific names to several varieties of C. Cassis in the Tabl. Ene. 
Méth. In publishing his Hist. Anim. s. Vert., however, he 
appears to have recognized the propriety of giving wider limits 
to the specific groups. 
63, 64, 65. Nothing need be said of N. Fascia, Linn., N. Ra- 
phanistrum, Linn., and N. obliqua, Linn., catalogued in the 
Hist. An. s. Vert. vol. vii. p. 594, 
66. “ Nodosaria Siphunculus” is a Serpula. See Ann. Nat. 
Hist. 3 ser. vol. iii. p. 480, where the Linnean species and va- 
rieties of Nodosaria are treated of (pp. 477-479). 
IX.—Note on Carduella cyathiformis. By Professor ALLMAN. 
To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 
GENTLEMEN, 
My attention has been directed to a communication “On the 
Lucernaria cyathiformis of Sars,’ by Mr. Gosse, in last month’s 
Number of the ‘Annals.’ The following passage occurs in it: 
“Tn the ‘ Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science’ for this 
month, Professor Allman has described and figured what he 
considers to be the Lucernaria cyathiformis of Sars, instituting 
for it a new genus, under the name of Carduella. I feel sure 
he was not aware that I had already separated it from Lucer- 
naria, under the generic name of Depastrum, in the ‘ Annals’ 
for June 1858, p. 419.” 
The paragraph here referred to, in which Mr. Gosse institutes 
his genus Depastrum, occurs in his excellent “Synopsis of the 
British Actiniz ;” and I confess that it had entirely escaped my 
memory, until the remark above quoted caused me again to 
refer to the paper which contains it. I find the genus Depas- 
trum there defined as follows :— 
« Depastrum (Gosse). Corpus repente contractum, et supra et 
