EGTEIXASCIDIA AND THE CLAVELINID^l. 147 



remains unsettled, and until Philippi's original specimen of 

 Bhopalcea neapolitana (if it is still in existence) is compared 

 anatomically with the specimens recently found in the 

 Mediterranean it must be regarded as open to doubt 

 whether these latter forms really belong to the same species. 

 However, although this is a matter which cannot be settled 

 by individual opinion, I am perfectly 'willing to admit that, 

 from the evidence now before us, I consider it most pro- 

 bable that it is the true Bhopalcea neapolitana, Phil., which 

 has been re-discovered, and that Philippi was mistaken in 

 regard to the condition of the internal longitudinal bars. 



Van Beneden regards the power of gemmation as not 

 being of sufficient value to distinguish even genera from 

 one another, so that even if Bhopalcea neapolitana were 

 proved to be a monozoic form he would not on that 

 account separate it from the polyzoic species of Ectein- 

 ascidia. 



In regard to Ed. Van Beneden's division of the group 

 of six species into three genera, my two species E. fusca 

 and E. crassa certainly agree in the relations of the ali- 

 mentary canal to the branchial sac, and in the condition 

 of the test, more closely with B. neapolitana than with 

 my remaining species E. turbinata, and might, therefore, 

 naturally fall into the genus Bhopalcea, provided always 

 that the modern zoologists are justified in their assump- 

 tion of Philippi's error of description, and of there being 

 no fundamental difference in the reproduction by gemm- 

 ation. The three species of this genus would then be, 

 as Van Beneden points out, Bhopalcea neapolitana, Phil.; 

 it. crassa, Herdm.; and B. fusca, Herdm. 



But there are considerable differences in the structure 

 of the branchial sac, quite independently of the question of 

 papillae, between Bhopalcea neapolitana (as described and 

 figured by Eoulej and my two " Challenger" species. The 



