56 General Notes. [January, 



torily determined without the fleshy portion ; nor in our present 

 state of knowledge can the microscope determine these points." 



In the Zoological Record for 1873, Vol. x (pp. 508-9), Dr. Lut- 

 kji, editor of the department Ccelenterata, uses the following 

 language : " Its generic identity with the Australian species (type 

 of Osteocella), cannot be established so long as the latter is known 

 only from the axial skeleton." 



It will be seen by the quotation that Dr. Lutken practically 

 sustains my position. 



My description, read before the Academy, August 18th, 1873, 

 was soon after reprinted in the American Journal of Science and 

 Art, to which Professor Verrill added a foot-note as follows: "A 

 recent examination of a specimen, convinces me that this species 

 is most nearly allied to the Halipteris cJiristii Kolliker (Koren 

 and Dar., sp.), and probably ought to be referred to the same 

 genus." 



While regretting that the generic title with which I had asso- 

 ciated the name of a justly distinguished naturalist, as well as a 

 personal friend, must yield to precedence, I can only accept his 

 suggestion, and place the species in Kolliker's genus Halipterus. 

 The allusions herein to the late Dr. Gray are not intended to re- 

 vive any differences of opinion as between that eminent authority 

 and myself, but are incidentally introduced, being necessary to 

 the continuity of the record of my own connection with the form 

 which furnishes the title to this paper. 



I was not aware until recently that I had not already called the 

 attention of the Academy to Professor Verrill's note, which long- 

 continued sickness in my family, and the pressure, until very re- 

 cently, of-official duties caused me to overlook. — R. E. C. Steams, 

 Berkely, California, Nov. g, 188 1. 



