116 LIVERPOOL BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
I cannot see that Mr. Bourne has sufficient grounds for 
merging the family Cymbasomatidee in the Coryceeide. 
It was when engaged in examining a mass of material 
which I had collected about the Canary Islands that I 
came across the solitary specimen alluded to above, and 
I took the precaution of consulting with Dr. G. 8. Brady 
before venturing to form for its reception the genus 
Cymbasoma. I did not overlook Dana’s genus Monstrilla 
as Mr. Bourne supposes, but having the support of Dr. 
Brady’s experienced opinion I was like him misled by the 
probably maccurate figure (Ray Society Monograph, vol. 
ITI. p. 38) taken from Lubbock’s solitary specimen, which 
has since been lost. This figure gives a large rostrum 
to the animal and omits one or more of the body 
seoments; and being taken from a male bears httle or no 
general resemblance to my specimen, a female, the sexes 
of this genus being very dissimilar in form and appearance. 
With male specimens now before us I think there is a 
considerable probability of the identity of Lubbock’s 
Monstrilla anglica with my Cymbasoma herdmant. 
It is somewhat unaccountable that previous to my 
capture of the specimen off Teneriffe in 1887 not a single 
specimen of Monstrilla should have been recorded as taken 
anywhere for a quarter of a century, especially as Claparéede 
reports that it was not at all rare on the Normandy coast 
when he described Monstrilla dane in 1863* and as it has 
been so frequently met with during the last two years. 
My experience is that the striking appearance of the 
animals of this genus render them readily conspicuous 
whenever they are in material under examination. The 
fact that they are destitute of posterior antenne, mandibles, 
and maxille, as well as foot jaws, at once distinguishes 
* Beobach, Anat. Entwick. Wirbellos. Thiere, Leipzig, p. 95, 
