274 ~=Rev. A. M. Norman on the Genus Haliphysema. 
or more ; must a genus be created for this, to separate it from 
species which often have twenty and more chambers? Lists 
of such comparisons might be multiplied to any extent. 
Gastrophysema is simply Haliphysema more fully developed. 
Haliphysema Tumanowiczit, Bow. 
1862. Halyphysema Tumanowiczii, Bowerbank, Philos. Trans. p. 1105, 
pl. Ixxiii. fig. 3; Monog. Brit. Sponges, vol. i. (1864) p. 179, pl. 
xxx, fig. 359, vol. ii. p. 76. 
1866. Halyphysema Tumanowiczii, O. Schmidt, Zweites Supplem. d. 
Spong. d. Adriatischen Meeres, p. 18, plate, fig. 13 (copy from 
Bowerbank). 
1868. Halyphysema Tumanowiczit, Parfitt, Trans. Devon Assoc. Sci. 
Literat. and Art, p. 14 (separate copy). 
1870. Squamulina scopula, Carter, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. v. 
p- 310, pl. iv. figs. 1-11, and vol. xx. (1877) p. 337. 
ue _Haliphysema primordiale, Haeckel, Biologische Studien, p. 180, 
. 1X. 
1807, Haliphysema Tumanowicxi, Haeckel, 1. c. p. 192. 
1877. Gastrophysema dithalamium, Haeckel, /. c. p. 196, pls. xii.—xiv. 
1877. Gastrophysema seopula, Haeckel, 1. c. p. 206. 
Hab. Hastings (Mr. Tumanowicz), Berwick Bay (Dr. 
Johnston), Cullercoats (?) (Alder), Budleigh-Salterton (Car- 
ter); Bergen, Norway (Haeckel) ; ‘ H. primordiale,” Mediter- 
ranean, Corsica (Haeckel); “ G. dithalamium,” Mediter- 
ranean, Smyrna (Haeckel). 
Mr. Carter found this species at Budleigh-Salterton, and, 
though he renamed it, at the same time identified it with 
Bowerbank’s type species of Haliphysema. Haeckel, how- 
ever, denies that Carter had ever seen Bowerbank’s species, 
Mr. Carter has replied that he has now had the opportunity 
of comparing his own specimens side by side with those of Dr. 
Bowerbank, and that they are identical. This last statement 
I am in a position to entirely indorse. In my collection 
are some of Mr. Tumanowicz’s type specimens on Haleciwm 
Beanii, which were given to me by Dr. Bowerbank, and also 
type specimens of Sguamulina scopula, for which I am in- 
debted to Mr. Carter. They are absolutely identical. I have 
not seen any specimens with the constrictions so deep and 
strongly marked as Carter’s pl. iv. fig. 2; but the largest of 
Mr. Tumanowicz’s examples closely resembles his chief 
figure (3), while the youngest resemble the typical figures of 
Tumanowiczti, and primordiale and those of intermediate 
age, dithalamium ; at the same time monothalamous specimens 
often exceed in size the dithalamous. They range from 1 to 
2 millims. in length. 
Haeckel’s characters for his so-called species are :— 
H. primordiale. “ Body of person spindle-shaped, attached 
