146 TRANSACTIONS LIVERPOOL BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



anatomical description, with figures, in his "Revision des 

 especes de Phallusiadees des cotes de Provence."* Roule 

 relied upon the property of budding as distinguishing his 

 form from Ecteinascidia. He considered Bhopalcea as a 

 solitary Ascidian (monozoic) while the species of Ectein- 

 ascidia are capable of reproducing by gemmation (polyzoic). 

 Ed. Van Beneden also examined some of the Marseilles 

 specimens, and found them to be identical with some 

 examples which he had found at Naples in 1881, and which 

 he regarded as Bhopalcea neapolitana, and both he and 

 Roule consider that these recently-found specimens belong 

 to Philippi's species, which had been practically lost sight 

 of for forty years. 



There is, however, this important difference between 

 Philippi's description and the specimens investigated by 

 Roule and by Van Beneden that in the latter the internal 

 longitudinal bars of the branchial sac are non-papillated, 

 as in Ecteinascidia, while Philippi distinctly described 

 and figured papillse upon these vessels. Ed. Van Benedenf 

 now regards this as an error of observation on the part of 

 Philippi, and by altering in this important respect the 

 original description of Bhopilcea he makes it practically 

 identical (if it possesses the property of reproducing by 

 gemmation) with my genus, Ecteinascidia, as denned in 

 the Challenger Report. 



This genus (Bhopalcea = Ecteinascidia) he then breaks 

 up into three sections which he raises to generic rank under 

 the titles Bhopalcea, Philippi; Ecteinascidia, Herdman; 

 and Sluiteria, n. gen. To this there can be no possible 

 objection provided Roule and Van Beneden are correct in 

 regarding Philippi's observation of the papillse in the 

 branchial sac as an error ; but that is just the point that 



* Recueil Zool. Suisse, t. iii, p. 209. 



t Bull, de l'Acad. Roy. de Belgique, 1887, p. 23, 



