64 TRANSACTIONS LIVERPOOL BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
sion of a pharyngeal apparatus similar to that of Kowa- 
levskia tenuis, as seen under a comparatively low power 
of the microscope and imperfectly comprehended. The 
projection of the rows of close-set ciliated processes 
within the pharyngeal cavity has been described as a 
fold of the pharyngeal wall pierced by stigmata. The 
spaces incompletely bounded by the dorsal processes above 
and the ventral processes below could easily give rise to a 
belief in the existance of stigmata: Fol himself compares 
their appearance to that of two rakes with their prongs 
almost in contact, or to a sieve (dowble raéteau, tamis, Fol, 
l.c., p. 41). By a curious coincidence, however, both 
Moss and Fol figure oblique views of their animals, a 
comparison of which inclines me to believe that the 
former mistook the ciliated processes themselves for 
stigmata (cf. Fol, Pl. X. fig. 5 with Moss, Pl. XLVIL. fig. 
5). The correspondence between these two figures is far 
too complete to be merely accidental, and it seems clear 
to me that Moss, examining his animal from the right 
side, mistook the dorsal row of processes for a row of 
stigmata on the left of the median line, while the ventral 
row of processes constitutes his row of stigmata on the 
right side. Upon this view, the elongated elliptical band, 
marked U in Moss’s figure, is possibly the huge aperture 
of the right branchial canal (fig. 1, U; fig. 3, AW). Here 
again the mistake, which Surgeon Moss made, is not 
without parallel. Sanders* mistook a number of large 
ectoderm cells for stigmata in a species of Ovkopleura, and 
described the animal as provided with a branchial canal 
on one side only—that of the other side having been over- 
looked ! 
*(1) Contributions towards a knowledge of the Appendicularia. Monthly 
Microse. Journ., XI., 1874, p. 141. 
(2) Supplementary Remarks on Appendicularia. Monthly Microse, 
Journ,, XIL., p. 209, 
