Dr. H. Burmeister on Glyptodon and its Allies. 299 



and bifid at the extremity ; branches simple, or bearing one or 

 two ramules, alternate, inclined upwards, sometimes furnished 

 with tendrils. Hydrotheca opposite, tubular, slender and grace- 

 fully curved, about half their length free and divergent, but not 

 abruptly bent, with a plain suberect aperture. GonothecfB (fe- 

 male) elongate-pyriform, tapering ojff below and expanding gra- 

 dually upwards, bristling with strong spines above, arranged on 

 six longitudinal ridges and extending down the upper third of 

 the capsule; (male) ovate, with six longitudinal ridges, termi- 

 nating above in angular points, the aperture central and sub- 

 conical. 



Allied to S. rosacea, with which and S. pinaster it has been 

 confounded. It is more robust and rigid and of larger growth 

 than the former of these species, and wants its delicate mem- 

 branaceous texture. The reproductive capsules of the two are 

 totally dissimilar. 



Hab. On other zoophytes : North Devon, Cornwall, Brighton, 

 Yorkshire coast, Peterhead (C. W. Peach). 



I have also to record the occurrence of the following species 

 on our coasts : — 



Clava leptostyla, Agassiz. 



On a mussel-shell from Morecambe Bay; obtained by Mr. F. 

 H. West, of Leeds. 



Gonothyraa gracilis, Sars. 

 Birterbuy Bay, Connemara ; dredged by G. S. Brady, Esq. 



XXXIX. — On Glyptodon and its Allies, 

 By Hermann Burmeister. 



From a recent French publication I learn that you have published 

 in your valuable Journal a translation of my observations on the 

 species of Glyptodon in the public museum of Buenos Ayres, 

 which I published here in the ' Pharmaceutical Review' for 1863. 

 That paper was written in the beginning of the year 1863, when 

 I had in my possession only the entire skeleton referred to and 

 a very few portions of the two other species, at that time the only 

 ones known to me. Now, after the lapse of three years, I am 

 acquainted with eight species found in this country ; and I there- 

 fore send you these further remarks on the specific differences, in 

 order to complete and correct my first publication. 



I begin my further notices of the skeleton by correcting an 

 error into which I have fallen in saying that the second bone of 

 the neck, which M. Serres has now named " os mesocervicale," 



21* 



