398 
M. Oscar Schmidt’s Remarks upon 
made the observation on my preparations, that in the animals 
preserved by Nitsche’s method the histological details often 
become very obscure, of which I shall hereafter adduce evi¬ 
dence, and that in most of the osmic-acid and alcoholic pre¬ 
parations of L. pes and the rest the gland is only recognizable 
with difficulty, I do not regard Nitsche’s statement with regard 
to the absence of the pedal gland as decisive. If my supposi¬ 
tion be confirmed that both L. crassicauda and L. Kefersteinii 
have pedal glands even when adult, or if it be proved that 
both of them have none, the sole, unimportant difference 
between them is the peculiar attachment of the buds of L. 
Kefersteinii. Whilst in all other species the pedal end of the 
bud is amalgamated with the body-wall of the mother, both 
investigators assert that in L. Kefersteinii this u Nabel ” 
exists above the foot. I should here dispute this statement, 
Avliich is by no means reconcilable with the development of 
the buds of the other species, if Claparede did not say of the 
animals observed alive, “ The freely waving peduncles of the 
buds extend themselves in the most various directions.” 
Various other forms, described by others than the above- 
named authors, have been referred to the Loxosomata, and 
especially Cyclatella annelidicola,Ysn\ Ben. and Hesse. Vogt 
says justly that the figure is at the utmost a caricature of a 
Loxosoma. But the description also does not suit. Of the 
peduncle it is said, u the very retractile peduncle terminates 
in a sucking-disk and this sucker is exactly like that of a 
Trematode. u The cilia of the appendages, in constant move¬ 
ment , are all round these appendages the words are quite 
irreconcilable with Loxosoma ; and as we cannot suppose that 
these distinct statements with regard to the simplest characters 
are fictitious, it seems to me that Cyclatella must no longer 
figure in the list of the Loxosomata , in spite of Van Beneden 
himself (‘ Schmarotzer,’ p. 54). I have therefore felt no 
hesitation about placing Cyclatella in the same neighbourhood 
as before, as a Trematode-like animal (Thierleben, 2nd edit, 
p. 155). 
Anatomy. —The differences in the anatomical descriptions, 
by myself on the one hand, and by Nitsehe and Salensky on 
the other, are not of much importance. Nitsehe says that 
Loxosoma has no collar (Rinykrayen) ; but it seems unmista¬ 
kably, from my figure of L. raja , Vogt’s of L. phascolosoma- 
tum , and Salensky’s of L. tethyce and crassicauda , not only 
that the simple tentaculiferous margin of the cup is constricted 
about the base of the infolded tentacles, but that a part occur¬ 
ring outside, close to the base of the tentacles, can be drawn 
over the tentacles as a hood. 
