No. 395-.] REVIEWS OF RECENT LITERATURE. 899 
ians. I believe, however, that the point of similarity emphasized by 
Professor Herdman’s proposal, viz., the compactness of the body, is 
considerably less fundamental than some other characters that might 
be selected, particularly that of the method of budding. Further- 
more, the term “ Holosomata”’ does not apply to these two families 
any more than it does to Perophora, which genus the author does 
not, of course, associate with the Botryllide and Polystyelide. 
I would not go so far as Garstang has in relying upon the char- 
acter of the budding as a basis for classifying the compound ascid- 
ians, but I believe that in the present state of our knowledge the 
most natural grouping of them that can be made is into two sections. 
One of these would include those in which the buds arise directly 
from the body of the parent, and the other those in which the bud- 
ding is from a stolon. The first section might well be called the _ 
“ Somatoblastica” and the second the “ Rhizoblastica.” These sec- 
tions would correspond to Herdman’s, with the exception that it 
would remain for the present an open question as to which one 
should contain the Didemnidz, the probabilities being, however, 
that this family would ultimately find its place among the Somato- 
blastica. 
Those who object to mongrel words will be likely to find fault with 
“ Pectosomata”’ on etymological grounds. 
At the close of the report the author has given a list of all the 
species of Tunicata thus far known from Australian waters. This 
list includes 187 species, distributed as follows among the three 
divisions of the group: 
Larvacea I species 
Thaliacea 7 species 
Ascidiacea 179 species 
The work is a very important contribution to the general zodlogical 
knowledge of this group.. Less can be said in favor of the volume 
from the bookmaker’s than from the naturalist’s point of view, but it 
will serve its purpose well, and that is the essential thing. 
Wo. E. RITTER. 
The Coccide of Mauritius.—M. d’Emmerez de Charmoy has 
recently published a very interesting account of the Coccide of 
Mauritius, in a pamphlet issued by the Société Amicale Scientifique 
of that island. As it is probable that this work will not fall into 
many hands, it may be worth while to give a list of the species, 
