320 Dr. A. G ruber on Protozoa. 



Stichotricha had been introduced with the sea- water. On two 

 occasions, also, I succeeded in detecting one of them in a 

 sample from the aquarium. Evidently the conditions in the 

 small vessel filled with brackish water were very favourable 

 to the Stichotrichce, as they had rapidly increased to a consi- 

 derable extent. 



Lastly, it still remains for me to say something about the 

 resemblance which Stichotricha urnula has to the genus 

 Chcetospira. I have already * put forward the supposition 

 that the Chcetospira which Lachmann t has figured may be 

 identical with Stichotricha. This has become to me a certainty 

 since Stichotricha urnula came under my observation. A 

 glance at Lachmann's figure 7 will show that the figure repre- 

 sents a form which is not to be distinguished from my Sticho- 

 tricha urnula* 



Eecently Saville Kent, in his i Manual of the Infusoria ' 

 (London, 1880 and 1881), has cited the genus Gkmtospira 

 and figured a species of it (pi. xxix. figs. 37, 38). He also 

 refers it to the Heterotrichous Infusoria — an error which is 

 easily explained, as the numerous cilia of the rows running 

 over the body often produce the impression that the Infusoriau 

 is entirely covered with cilia. I think, however, that I have 

 sufficiently proved that this is not the case, and that the Infu- 

 soriau possesses all the characters of an Oxytrichine, and 

 particularly of a Stichotricha. 



Although Lachmann's and Kent's figures scarcely leave 

 any doubt that their species are the same as my Stichotricha 

 urnula, I have preferred not to retain the name Chcetospira, 

 because this generic name has hitherto been applied among 

 the Heterotrichous forms. Moreover it seems to me, as already 

 stated, justifiable to refer the Infusorian to the previously ex- 

 isting genus Stichotricha. 



In conclusion, I must call attention to an Infusorian, to 

 which its discoverer, Hudson J, has given the name of Arch i- 

 medea remex, whilst he appends the designation Chcetospira 

 in brackets with a note of interrogation. Kent (loc. cit. 

 p. 603) quite correctly regards this form as a Stichotricha ; and 

 as the domicile differs essentially from those of allied species, 

 it must be named Stichotricha remex n 



* "Xeue Infusorien," loc. cit. 



t " Ueber die Organisation der Infusorien &c." Mullers Archiv, 18o6 f 

 Taf. xiii. figs. 6, 7. 



X Monthly Micr. Journ. vol. xiv. p. 186, 



§ The last part of Kent's ' Manual ' only reached me after this memoir 

 had been sent to the editors. In it the above-mentioned form ia *3&0 

 cited as Stichotricha remex ; but, on the other hand, a new genus, Seh&&>* 

 siphon, is created for my Stichotricha sociulis, which seems to me not to 

 be necessary. 



