Botany and Zoology. 161 
excellent oats of their more prominent details, hitherto only 
known from the drawings of Mertens and the descriptions of 
Stestistrap.! It seems to us as if Heckel had needlessly multi- 
plied not only the families, but Hee the genera of this group. 
(Com nee Pericolpa and ‘Periph ylla.) 
ong the Charybdeide we must call Special attention to the 
interesting genera Procharybdis and Chirodropus. These are 
specially important as bringing the ee ae into closer eh 
tematic relationship to the i Discophor 
In the next order, the Disco-Meduse, he adopts the primary 
subdivisions of the group § Reticgatoinss and Rhizostome proposed 
y Agassiz, Although he prefaces his ee ~ that classification 
by stating that it is entirely eo abe he nee, after remov- 
ing some of the forms included in these divisions into other fam- 
ilies, proceeds to adopt it. Pacing akes a most characteristic 
attempt to show that Agassiz willfully applets to quote Hux- 
ley’s paper on a anatomy and affinity of the family of the 
Meduse. (See p. 27 Contrib. Nat. Hist. U. S., vol. iii, where 
Huxley’s paper is quoted.) Naturalists who willfully ignore or 
misrepresent the work of their colleagues are fortunately more 
rare than those who are known to manufacture drawings to suit 
their pet theories. Heckel, of course, differs from Agassiz radi- 
cally in his estimate of the value of the homology between 
Acalephs and Echinoderms. His view may be “ grundfalsch” 
according to Heckel, but it certainly is not yet so considered b 
those embry ologists who have the best right to an opinion on 
the tii es 
subdivision adopted by cae iy he eat Se to those 
itstittOhed above), the Cannostome, can sight red- 
which, no matter how well rdaseved: 
Heckel dcuiatatad in 1869 upon a new eee s of Rhivobioitis, 
are illustrations of es bugs cae and Thys oma. This same 
gies to our nocd ee of the Whisbet ii, 
The majority of the plates of the seacid part of Heckel’s 
