248 Scientific Intelligence. 
analyze more closely the combination of characters of the genus, 
none of which are new, as Heckel himself states, we cannot help 
being convinced that "Heckel has = ed ‘peyond measure 
the external resemblance, and that there is not in Ctena 
single feature characteristic of the rs while on the 
contrary every structural detail is met with in som e u 
Tubularians (Anthomeduse). The _ ribs of lasso 
where, however, the branching is not symmetrical. Nor is there 
anything in the genital organs, the stomach, or proboscis, which 
we do not find in other Tubularian genera, while we — nothi es 
whatever like the above structures in any Ctenophor 
finally, if we imagine the pedunculated knobs of lasso coll ‘of 
Gemmaria and Pteronema to be — along the peduncles 
Ctenaria differed in any way from those of the other Cladonemide. 
That the material = remaining for investigation is very grea 
is nah known to all w ave had occasion to sail on tropical seas 
and to see the immense wealth of pelagic life weit Fie me 
Heckel’s work shows how much progress could be made 
knowledge of Acalephs by selecting a few properly ‘alah sation 
where Meduse could be studied advantageously. 
4, _— of npr ad parva ss ee by the United States 
Coast Survey Steamers “ Corw “ Bibb,” “ Hassler,” and 
% Blake,” JSrom 1867 to 1879 ; ie ’ Bunsamin Prerce and ee 
tion ; ea THEroporE Lyman. Part I. (Bulletin of the Museum 
of Comparative Zoology at “acd College, Cambridge, Mass., 
“ vi, No. 2). December, 1879. 
The Cotton Worm ; Summary of its Natural History, with 
an oun of its enemies and the best means of contr olling it; 
es a aor a progress of the work of the Commission ; by 
M. h.D. Washington. 1880. (United 
States itomclogiesl Commission. Bulletin No. 3.) 
