2 
gave a diagnosis that would fit any Ascon, and his type specimens 
were jumbles of three or four species ; consequently Prof. Minchin 
declared his name to be of no systematic value whatever. To 
Haeckel’s name Ascandra contorta, Prof. Minchin referred a 
sponge extremely abundant on the Mediterranean coasts of 
France. Haeckel also pointed out that Dr. Bowerbank’s diagnosis 
was not definitive of the species, and diagnosed the species 
by details of spiculation. In this he was incorrect in saying 
the monaxons were possessed of lance-head distal ends, and that 
gastral rays of the quadriradiates ‘ curved.” 
Prof. Minchin preferred to name Ascandra contorta H. as 
Clathrina contorta, having a closely reticulate mode of growth, 
equiangular triradiate systems, collar-cells with basal nucleus, and 
parenchymula larva. 
He showed that the monaxon spicules were very variable—so 
much so, as to explain the name Ascetta spinosa Len. All 
specimens of spinosa examined by him were of small size, not 
like the broad spreading growth of contorta containing monaxon 
spicules; and having examined a slide labelled Ascetta spinosa 
in Lendenfeld’s handwriting, and having found the triradiate 
systems exactly similar to those of the true contorta, he came 
to the conclusion that the Ascetia spinosa was only an age 
variation of Clathrina contorta, not yet possessing monaxon 
spicules. 
He discussed the question whether there was justification for a 
new species or whether this should be regarded as a variation 
only, on the grounds of the formation of spicules, and which were 
primary monaxons and which were secondary. 
Mr. F. E. Bepparp, F.R.S., read some notes on the Anatomy 
of the Ferret-Badger (Melictis personata), based on a dissection of 
a specimen that had recently died in the Society’s Gardens. 
Mr. W. P. Pycrart, F.Z.8., read a paper on the Osteology of 
the Hurylenide, and briefly discussed the question of the 
systematic position of this group. 
While agreeing with the general concensus of opinion as to the 
primitive character of these birds, he held that the isolated 
position which they were supposed to occupy with regard to the 
remaining Passeres was by no means justified by facts. 
The pterylography, osteology, and myology of the Hurylemide 
all tended to show that the nearest allies of these birds were the 
Cotingide. 
Although undoubtedly primitive, the group, Mr. Pyeraft pointed 
out, presented a number of specialised characters, which were 
especially marked in the skull and muscles of the wing. 
