8 



vus par Saxensky et par Hansen dans la ventouse de Sphceronella et de Choniostoma. 

 Mais le premier de ces observateurs les a consideres comme de simples replis de la mem- 

 brane; le second n'a pas vu la membrane et a pris les rayons pour des cils chitineux. Un 

 examen tres attentif peut seul permettre d'eviter cette double erreur«. In spite of this well 

 worded phrase, I must observe that they have not arrived at any better result than the 

 predecessors they criticise. The membrane exists without folds and without »rayons chitineux«, 

 for these »rayons« are free hairs, » cils chitineux«, which originate at the base of the mem- 

 brane, leaning freely against it on the outside, and in their own preparation these hairs, as 

 usual, stand clearly out beyond the edge of the membrane. 



5) »La premiere patte machoire (mxpi) est r6duite a un long stylet droit aigu, 

 beaucoup plus simple que 1'organe correspondant du male de Sphceronella* (p. 346). What 

 they describe and figure here is only the terminal joint of the maxilla (according to my 

 definition of this pair of limbs); it is not straight, but slightly curved, in their own type 

 specimen, as well as in my drawing (pi. XII, fig. 3 k.). They have also overlooked the 

 very large, long and broad basal joint, which appears distinct enough in their own type ; if 

 they had seen it, they would have found the missing resemblance with Sphceronella, and it 

 seems difficult to understand this gap in their observation. 



6) However, the climax of the incomprehensible is reached in their description of 

 the maxillipeds. In their text they mention three joints, of which »le troisieme se prolonge 

 en une dent crochue«, yet this »dent« is drawn as a claw-like joint, which is well 

 separated by an articulation and can be folded up towards the joint above it. But in 

 examining their type specimen, I found that it agreed perfectly with my figure on pi. XII; 

 what they describe and draw as the three first stout joints, indeed is only one single joint 

 without a vestige of the two articulations they mention and figure. The »dent crochue« is 

 really jointed on, as they figure it, but furthermore, in their own preparation it consists 

 of two distinct joints, and I cannot have misunderstood their text, for their statement 

 about the claw »a laquelle fait face un petit tubercule pointu« is fairly correct. So, 

 seeing that their own type specimen agrees exactly with my illustrations, I leave it to 

 the reader to compare their description, and especially their figure, with mine, and to find 

 out how they can possibly have been so much mistaken; as for me, 1 am at a loss to 

 understand it. 



I have two reasons for giving this detailed demonstration of the mistakes committed 

 by the authors in their description and figure of this male specimen. In the first place I 

 wish to verify in detail the identity of their species with my own, secondly I wanted to be 

 able to refer to this substantiation in the following pages, where I shall have to point out 

 that in a later paper the same authors have made considerable mistakes in their description 

 of two other forms, of which I have not seen their type specimen. 



The authors (p. 356) state their opinion that the family Choniostomatidse is nearest 

 akin to Chondracanthidse , Lernseopodidse and Ascomyzontidse. I agree with them as to 



