ANNULATA MESOZOA. 
Verm. 1 5 
The family Ilcsionca are next dealt with, and a comparative table 
given of its 22 genera. 
Parapodarlce , g. n. Intermediate between Podarce and Microphthal- 
mus ; for P. lubrica , sp. n. 
Aphroditacea : Paranychia , g. n. for P. taurica , sp. n. 
j Eunoa mammiloba , truncata , spp. nn. 
Lagisca ehlersi, var. n. pontica. 
Parapolynoe, g. n. for sevastopolica , sp. n. 
Pholoe synophthalmica , var. n. pontica, 
Nephthys : comparative table of 5 Mediterranean species IV. mceotica 
and IV. langcrhansi , spp. nn. 
Tomopteris rolasi , mariana , spp. nn., Greef (43). 
Distichopus , g. n. Euchytt'ceidorum, for ZX silvestris, sp. n. (Pennsyl- 
vania) ; Leidy, P. Ac. Philad. 1882, pp. 145-147. 
ENTEROPNEUSTI. 
Balanoglossus aurantiacus in moderate numbers near Atlantic City, 
N. J. ; Leidy, P. Ac. Philad. 1882, p. 93 ; Ann. N. H. (5) x. p. 79. 
MESOZOA. 
GO. Beneden, E. van. Contribution a l’histoire des Dicyemides. 
Arch. Biol. iii. pp. 195-228, pis. vii. & viii. 
01. J IJEIN, C. Contribution a l’histoiro des Mesozoairos ; Rccherchcs 
sur ^organisation et lo developpement cmbryonnaire des Orthonec- 
tides. Arch. Biol. iii. pp. 1-54, pis. i.-iii. 
62. Whitman, C. 0. A Contribution to the Embryology, Life-History, 
and Classification of the Dicyemids. MT. z. Stat. Neap. iv. pp. 1-89, 
pis. i.-v. 
The important papers published in this group have, perhaps, a little 
had their origin in the view lately expressed by Leuckart (12), that we 
have here to do with forms degenerated by parasitism, and comparable 
to the ciliated larva3 of Distomata. This view is especially discussed by 
Yan Beneden (60) who rejects it entirely. The author just named 
describes 2 new genera : Conocyema — C. polymorpha , from the renal 
cavity of Sepia officinalis ; and Microcyema — M. vespa, which was taken 
by Wagener for the infusoriform embryo of Dicyema gracile. Yan 
Beneden now inclines to the view that tho infusoriform form is a male, 
and its “ urne ” a testicle. He concludes by justifying the establishment 
of the phylum of Mesozoa , which he defines and divides into Ortho- 
nectida and Rliombozoa ; tho latter are divisible into Dicyemida and 
// eterocyemida. 
Julin’s (61) general results are in close accordance with those of his 
master, and he also defends the group Mesozoa. He points out how they 
resemble or how they differ from the Actinozoa, and gives some details 
