142 SYDNEY .1. HICKSON AND J. T. WADSWORTH. 
Ehvenberg apparently saw the meganucleus, but in his 
first paper expressed the opinion that it was the male genital 
gland. In the figure (11, Plate III a) which he published 
later he represents a long axial vacuole, probably the mega- 
nucleus, and in the description of it apparently abandons the 
view that this structure is a s'enital nland. 
Claparede aud Lachmann (5) gave a good figure of Dendro- 
soma in 1861, but made a grave eri’or in describing: the mega- 
nucleus as an elongated contractile vacuole. There is no 
reason whatever for believing that there is in Dendrosoraa 
any system of elongated canals in communication with the 
ordinary spherical contractile vacuoles. 
The next important contribution to our knowledge of 
Dendrosoma is that of Levick (23), who in 1880 described 
and gave a good figure of the gemmule. Levick also gave a 
description of the interesting streaming movements of the 
protoplasm, which we have confirmed. There can be little 
doubt, however, that the germ and sperm elements” of this 
author were not correctly interpreted. Notwithstanding the 
statement that he actually saw living spermatozoa comparable 
to those of Hydra discharged from the Dendrosoma, it is, in the 
light of our knowledge of the reproductive processes of other 
Acinetaria, impossible to accept the view that Dendrosoma 
possesses at any time definite male and female sexnal 
glands. 
In 1881 Saville Kent (19) published a more elaborate 
account of the species and gave a figure of a large specimen 
one tenth of an inch in height, which has been copied wdth 
some modifications in nearly all the text-books of zoology. 
The principal new point of interest in Kent’s accouut of 
the species is the description of “ certain exogenousl_y pro- 
duced buds similar to those of Acineta mystacina des- 
cribed by Stein.” If Kent’s interpretation of these bodies 
were correct Dendrosoma would present the very remarkable 
peculiarity of producing two different kinds of gemmulte 
at the same time. Subsequent authors have referred to 
these bodies with caution: Butschli (2) calls them ^'angebliche 
