ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY3 MICEOSCOPY, ETC. 59 



S. Incertse Sedis. 



"Notes on some Rotifera from the neighbourhood of Geneva."* — 

 M. E. F. Weber describes four new species of Eotifers, viz. Limnias 

 granulosus, CEcistes socialis, Rotifer trisecatus, aud Rotifer elongatus ; 

 and discusses, also, several points in the structure of such well-known 

 animals as Floscularia campanulata, Hydatina senta, &c., &c., which he 

 thinks have been incorrectly described. There is also a full account, 

 accompanied by several drawings, of Microcodon clavus. Both the de- 

 scription and the figures of this rare Eotiferon will well repay study, 

 though the latter (pi. xxxix. figs. 5 and 6) greatly exaggerate the slight 

 curvature which the trochal disc has in the living animal, and the 

 former is disfigured by faults that pervade the whole memoir; for 

 these " Notes " are written throughout with an assumption of authority 

 which is by no means warranted by M. Weber's observations, figures, or 

 descriptions. 



Let us take, for example, M. Weber's new species CEcistes socialis. 

 The head of this Eotiferon is said to consist of a large open funnel, 

 bearing on its upper rim one circular ring of cilia, and having the 

 animal's buccal orifice deep down at the bottom of the funnel. We have 

 here, then, a Eotiferon whose corona is not only utterly unlike that of 

 any known CEcistes, but is such as is not to be found in any genus of 

 the Melicertidse. For every Melicertan has its ciliary wreath frincinof 

 a solid, imperforate, and nearly flat fleshy disc — not a perforate funnel. 

 It has, too, a double ciliary wreath — not a single one ; and its buccal 

 orifice is asymmetrically situated, on the ventral surface, at the back of 

 a flat trochal disc — not symmetrically situated at the bottom of a funnel- 

 shaped one. 



But this is not all ; the trophi are said to consist of two rami with 

 three teeth crossing each — that is to say, that CE. socialis has the mastax 

 of a Philodine ; and, moreover, there is said to be only one ventral 

 antenna, instead of the usual pair. From all this it is clear either that 

 this new animal is not a Melicertan at all, or that it has been very 

 imperfectly observed and described by M. Weber. 



Another new species, Limnias granulosus, presents us with almost 

 as many perplexing characters. First, the side view of the head 

 (pi. xxvii. fig. 1) is ludicrously incomprehensible, and must be seen to 

 be appreciated. Next, fig. 2 in the same plate professes to be a dorsal 

 view, but shows the two ventral antennae on the same side as the solitary 

 dorsal one ; and the text distinctly states that the three antennae are all 

 on the dorsal surface. But such an arrangement is not to be found in 

 any other Melicertan : throughout the family the paired antennfe lie on 

 the ventral surface, one on either side of the buccal orifice ; and the 

 solitary antenna lies on the dorsal surface. Still, such is the endless 

 variety of Nature, that we should have hesitated to have challenged a 

 positive statement, like the above, were it not that in fig. 4 in the same 

 plate the same three antenna are all placed side by side on a surface, 

 which the drawing of the trochal disc shows to be the ventral one. A 

 glance at figs. 2 and 4 will satisfy any one, familiar with Limnias, of 

 the correctness of our statement. 



Again, in the figures (pi. xxx. figs. 1, 2) of the new species Rotifer 

 trisecatus, we meet with a similar anomaly. In fig. 1 the spurs are 



* Arch, de Biol., viii. (1888) pp. 647-722 (11 pis.). 



