[No. 7. 



3. Daphnia honorata, King. 

 Gen. Ceriodaphnia. This species would seem to be nearest 

 related to the European species G. reticulata (Jurine), though 

 undoubtedly distinct. It is also different from the species des- 

 cribed by the author in a previous paper as G cornuta. 



4. Moina lemnse, King. 

 This is certainly not a Moina. I feel tolerably convinced 

 that it more properly ought to be referred to the genus Latonura 

 Lilljeberg, belonging to the family Lyncodaphnidce. 



5. Moina Macleayii, King. 

 As pointed out by Mr. Schoedeler, this is a very distinct 

 species, exhibiting certain most anomalous characters. I believe 

 it is very closely allied to, if not identical with, the species re- 

 cently described by Mr. Brady from Ceylon under the name of 

 Moina submucronata. Through the kindness of that author I 

 have been enabled to examine a few of his specimens, and find 

 this form to differ in several respects so materially from the 

 known European species of Moina, as also from the Australian 

 species, M. propinqva, described by the present author in a pre- 

 vious paper, that I am inclined to regard it as belonging to a 

 distinct new genus, for which I would propose the name of for 

 ramoma. To this genus also the form described by King should 

 be referred. 



6. Daphnia mucronata, MiUler. 



Gen. Scapholeberis. Though this form certainly belongs to 

 the same genus as Daphnia mucronata Mttller, I cannot agree 

 with Mr. King and Mr. Schoedeler in regarding it as identica 

 with the above-named European species. According to the fig»^ 

 given by King, it differs among other things rather markedly m 

 the much smaller and differently formed head. I would proP 0S 

 for the species the name Scapholeberis Kingii. 



