No.1.] BUDDING IN GOODSIRIA AND PEROPHORA. 219 
name in C/avelina, since in this species the epicardium is 
connected with the branchial sac.” 
Lefevre (95) says: ‘No epicardium is present; in this 
respect Perophora differs strikingly from Clavelina and some 
other Ascidians.” So far as the Jdlastozooids are concerned 
these unqualified statements are, I believe, fully justified. It 
must, however, be remembered that we do not know how the 
stolon originates from the embryozooid, and until we are 
informed on this point I must place a certain reservation 
on my assertion of the entire absence of the epicardium in 
Perophora. 
If we accept Garstang’s view that the relation of the heart 
to the epicardium is secondary, then the fact that the heart 
arises on one side of the body, while the stolonic septum is 
attached to the peribranchial sac of the other side in Pevophora, 
would be of little weight against supposing an epicardium to be 
present in this species. But I have already shown that this 
author’s conjecture is contradicted by the evidence of Goodsi7za, 
if he would still maintain that the pouches described in this 
species are homologous with the epicardium of Clavelina. 
In the present state of our knowledge on this point, then, I 
am a long way from conceding, as Garstang thinks we must, 
“that these modifications of the epicardial tubes provide a 
sound basis for a true and genetic classification of Tunicate 
budding.” That, when considered in connection with various 
other developmental and anatomical facts, it is of prime import- 
ance in interpreting the budding, cannot be questioned. But 
the attempt to make it, in itself, a basis for classifying the Com- 
pound Ascidians can hardly be more satisfactory than one- 
legged classifications ever are in zoology. 
