On a New Melieerta. Bij Dr. G. T. Hudson. ~ 231 
There only remains the question as to whether or no it is a 
newly discovered animal. Now Ehrenberg's figure is egregiously 
unlike M. tyro. The antennae of Tuhicolaria naias are short, 
those of M. tyro are very long ; and while the trochal disk of the 
former is barely more than the width of the body, that of M. tyro 
is at least three times as wide. 
Moreover Ehrenberg states that his Tuhicolaria naias is in his 
opinion the adult form of Dutrochet's Botifer alhivestitus. Now 
I have read Dutrochet's paper which appeared in 1812 in the 
* Annales du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle," and while his written 
description is very vague, his figures are so bad that it is impossible 
to determine anything from them. He however distinctly states 
that the antennae of Botifer alhivestitus were much shorter than 
those of Melieerta ringens, while those of M. tyro are very much 
longer. To sum up then, I think it not unlikely that Ehrenberg 
would have called M. tyro a Tuhicolaria, but I do not think that 
either he or Dutrochet ever saw it : — and it is clear that whether 
they did or no, it has no right to a difi'erent generic title from 
that of Melieerta ringens ; for if the difference in the tube is to be 
held sufficient to constitute a new genus, then must Melieerta 
jpillula, Mr. Cubitt's new Melicertan, have a new generic name. 
I ought to mention that Mr. Bolton tells me he found this new 
rotifer some two years ago in his prolific pond at Stourbridge. 
