98 
Mr. D’Arcy W. Thompson on new Hydroid 
more that no figures of the specimens have ever been pub¬ 
lished. I have been able to identify two species only with 
forms contained in the present collection, viz. 8. elongata , 
Lamx., and S. operculata , Linn. 
In 1864, Senator Dr. Kirehenpauer published a valuable 
paper, in the 1 Nova Acta,’ on the genus Dynamena of La- 
mouroux, and also described two new species from the 
Australian seas. One of these, however, D. fasciculata , is 
synonymous with S. operculata. A few scattered entries re¬ 
garding Australian forms are to be found in the works of 
Prof. Allman, Mr. Hincks, and others; but, so far as I ain 
aware, no other important contribution to the history of the 
Australian Hydroids has yet been published. 
The first special list of the New^-Zealand species was given 
by Mr. Gray, in the appendix to Dieffenbach’s 1 New Zea¬ 
land:’ it contained four species only of Sertulariidse and Thui- 
ariidte, besides a single Aglaophenia. This scanty list of four 
was considerably extended by Captain Hutton in 1872 (Trans. 
N.Z. Inst. vol. v. p. 256), who mentions eleven species, two 
of which are probably, however, merely varieties. 
In 1874 Dr. Millen Coughtrey communicated a paper to 
the Otago Institute, in which he added in many particulars to 
Captain Hutton’s results and described three new species. 
He also contributed a paper on the same subject to the Ann. 
& Mag. of Nat. Hist. (Jan. 1876), which is in substance the 
same as one published in the Trans. N.Z. Inst. vol. viii. 
In 1875 Prof. Allman read a paper before the Linnean 
Society, in which he described a large number of new and 
interesting Hydroids from many widely scattered localities. 
Among these were five Sertularellce from New Zealand, of 
which three were new; and three species of Thuiariidae, one 
only of which was undescribed. 
Among the older authorities on the Ilydroida much valuable 
and interesting information is to be found. The works of 
Lamouroux and Lamarck especially contain accounts of very 
numerous species from southern localities. The descriptions 
for the most part err, according to our notions, on the side of 
excessive shortness, and have for that reason been entirely set 
aside or overlooked by many recent authors. But though a 
few species are thus rendered unrecognizable, a great many can 
be identified without any great difficulty or uncertainty. 
I regret extremely being unable to obtain in Edinburgh 
Krauss’s ‘ Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Zoophyten der Siidsee,’ 
published at Stuttgart in 1832. 
A more minute and extended investigation will, in all pro- 
