272 Rev. A. M. Norman on the Genus Haliphysema. 
the result of its own secretion, and not extraneous matter in- 
corporated in the test. Attention may also be called to the 
fact that, whereas in Haliphysema the arrangement of the 
spicula in the pedicel is always parallel to the axis of the 
sponge, in Wagnerella the short acerates are uniformly ar- 
ranged transversely to the axis. 
II. The Species of Haliphysema and cts Allies. 
Order PSPAMMOTEICHINA, Norman. 
Genus Hatieuysema, Bow. 
= Squamulina, Carter (but not of Schultze). 
= Gastrophysema, Haeckel. - 
The characters of Schultze’s genus Squamulina are :—Test 
like a plano-convex lens, with the flat side attached; calca- 
reous ; enclosing a simple undivided cavity (‘eine einfache un- 
getheilte Héhlung umschliessend’) ; a large opening on the con- 
vex side ; without small pores.”’ Carter, in 1870, apparently 
had not Schultze’s ‘ Ueber den Organismus der Polythalamien’ 
at hand, and only knew that author’s genus through Carpen- 
ter’s ‘Introduction.’ It so happened that Carpenter omitted all 
reference to the ‘ simple undivided cavity ;” and thus Carter 
fell into the mistake of placing in Sguamulina a form the 
foraminiferal nature of which he was attempting to establish 
on account of the non-simple and pseudo-septate character of 
the pedestal or plano-convex foot. Foraminifer or not, the 
pseudo-septate-based, arenaceous Haliphysema Tumanowiczit, 
with its great (great as compared with the plano-convex base) 
obversely conical column and body, has most certainly no near 
relation to the little scale-like, calcareous Squamulina, with 
its simple, little, dome-shaped undivided chamber. It is pro- 
bable that Mr. Carter, with his present knowledge, would not 
now attempt to maintain that position ; a much stronger argu- 
ment might have been based on comparison with such a 
masonic foraminifer as Lituola nautiloidea, Lamk., which, 
commencing with a small spiral arrangement of cells, suddenly 
altering its growth, develops a straight series of chambers of 
great size as compared with those preceding. 
Haeckel’s views of nomenclature are peculiar to, and, it is 
to be hoped, always will remain peculiar to, himself. He ap- 
pears to take pleasure in establishing spurious genera and 
subsequently demolishing them*. I am sorry to anticipate 
* It is really much to be regretted that Haeckel, using the slightest 
modifications, or supposed possible modifications, of character, which no 
other naturalist hasever dreamt of regarding as of even varietal importance, 
