ECTEINASCIDIA AND THE CLAVELINIDJE. 145 



rnuda, but are distinct from any of the Challenger species. 

 The examination of these species enabled Sluiter to sup- 

 port with some additional arguments my contention that 

 the family Clavelinidse was more closely related to the 

 Simple than to the Compound Ascidians. 



In 1887, Ed. Van Beneden published a paper* dealing 

 with the classification of this group of Ascidians, in which 

 he contends that of these five known species referred to 

 Ecteinascidia two ought to be placed in the old genus 

 Bhopalcea of Philippi, two others remain in the genus 

 Ecteinascidia, and the fifth form the type of a new genus 

 for which he proposes the name Sluiter ia. To understand 

 his reasons for doing this it is necessary to go into the 

 history of the genus Bhopalcea. 



In 1842 Philippi found in the Gulf of Naples, and des- 

 cribed,! the remarkable form Bhopalcea neapolitana , the 

 type and only species of the genus. It was described as a 

 Simple Ascidian, and no definite information was given as 

 to whether it reproduced by gemmation. But at the time 

 when I examined the Challenger collection and formed 

 Ecteinascidia, I was distinctly of opinion t that Bhopalcea, 

 although closely allied to the Clavelinidse, differed from 

 Ecteinascidia and other genera in having the internal 

 longitudinal bars of the branchial sac papillated, a con- 

 dition which is shown clearly in Philippi' s figure. This 

 was the position of affairs until, in 1884, Eoule§ announced 

 to the Academy of Sciences at Paris that he had re- 

 discovered Bhopalcea on the coast near Marseilles, and 

 followed up his preliminary communication by a full 



*Les genres Ecteinascidia, Herd., UhnpaJcea, Phil., et Sluiteria (nov. gen.), 

 Bull, de TAcad. Roy. de Belgique, 3 ser., t. xiv., p. 19. 



+ Em neues Genus d. einfach. Ascidien, Midler's Archiv. 1843, p. 45. 

 + See Challenger Report, part I., p. 238. 

 § Comptes rendus of 19 Mai, 1884. 



