of Squamulina scopula with the Sponges. 173 
‘Annals’ (p. 12 e¢ seg.), assumes that Hickel has identified 
my Squamulina scopula=Halyphysema Tumanowiczti, Bk., 
with his genus Gastrophysema, and then infers (provisionally, 
p- 15) that, as Prof. Hiickel (‘Jenaische Zeitschrift,’ erstes 
Heft, Taf. iv.-vi.) represents collared, flagellated, monadic 
bodies with it, it is a sponge. 
Now Hiickel has not identified my Squamulina scopula 
with his Gastrophysema, as proved by his figures of the latter, 
wherein the cavity of the body is not prolonged into the poly- 
thalamous foot or test; and therefore Mr. Kent’s provisional 
inference falls to the ground. 
My Squamulina scopula, as may be seen by my figures 
(‘ Annals,’ 1870, vol. v. pl. iv.), consists of a subpolythala- 
mous discoid test, whose opening on the summit is prolonged 
into a tubular scopuliform structure, which is simple in one 
and dichotomously branched in the other species or variety ; 
so that the latter closely resembles in form the calcareous test 
of Carpenteria, whose opening at the summit is also prolonged 
into a tubular branched state, which is composed partly of cal- 
careous matter supplied by the animal itself, and partly of 
foreign material consisting chiefly of more or less fragmentary 
sponge-spicules: when the calcareous tube fails, which is 
often the case, the tube is wholly composed of the latter, like 
that of Squamulina scopula, only that the tubulation of Car- 
penteria terminates in fine branches, while those of Sguamulina 
scopula and its variety ramosa terminate in round scopuli- 
form extremities. 
Again, whether there be collared flagellated monadie bodies 
in Squamulina scopula or not, the polythalamous character, so 
appropriately given by the illustrious Ehrenberg to what we 
now call Foraminifera, decides the question with those who 
are well acquainted with the structure of the latter as well as 
that of the Spongida. No sponge, that I know of, presents 
the polythalamous character of Sqguamulina scopula, in its foot 
(root) or anywhere else. 
That Hiickel did not know what he was talking about is 
evident when he attempts to identify the bundle of anchoring 
spicules of Wyvellethomsonia Wallichit, formed by the sponge 
itself, with the heterogeneous material brought together by 
the organism which he represents under the name of /Taliphy- 
sema echinoides (op. cit. Tat. 11. fig. 127), and which Schmidt 
would provisionally call “ Stelletta echinotdes”’ (Archiv f. 
mikroskop. Anat. Bd. xiv. p. 260). 
Ido not mean to assert that Hiickel’s figures of Gastro- 
physema do not represent his Physemaria; but I mean to 
assert most emphatically that they do not represent my Squa- 
