70 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
satisfactory discussion of the place occupied by the Botatoria in the life system of 
the lake. In this paper it is only attempted to point out here and tliei'e problems 
that await settlement at the hands of careful investigators. 
The paper is, therefore, purely preliminary in character, aiming to show merely 
what species have thus far been recognized in the United States and where they are 
found, as well as giving descriptions and figures of some species that are in need of 
study. Future reports need not take the shape of a formal list, but will give accounts 
of special studies in any line or record additions to the fauna. Formal lists of species 
are perhaps the most uninteresting of scientific writings, yet they form a disagreeable 
necessity as a basis for further work. An ideal list is such a one as that given by 
Weber (’98) of the Botatoria of the basin of Lake Geneva, every name accompanied 
by a beautiful figure of the animal. The short time spent on the work thus far has 
rendered this impossible for the Botatoria of the Great Lakes. Most of the figures 
must be reserved for the future development of the work along this line. In the case 
of new species, or where there are other causes for special interest, figures are given 
in the present paper. These figures were drawn by Mrs. Louise Jennings from 
camera sketches made by the author. 
The author has endeavored to avoid, as far as possible, the naming of new species. 
Since the publication of Hudson and Gosse’s Monograph of the Botifera, about ten 
years ago, study of this group has been very active, resulting in the multiplication of 
papers on the subject, often without relation to one another, and describing the same 
forms under different names. A certain amount of this was perhaps inevitable at 
first, but heedless work has multiplied the resultant confusion many fold. No one 
has a right to cumber scientific literature with the names of species “presumably 
uudescribed,” as a recent paper naively puts it, without recognizing the fact that a 
vast volume of literature has appeared on the group since the publication of Hudson 
and Gosse’s Monograph, including descriptions of many new species (295 up to 1897, 
according to Bousselet, ’97). The recognition and description of a new species must 
therefore be regarded as a most laborious piece of work, involving a careful examina- 
tion of large numbers of papers in various languages, besides a consultation of 
Hudson and Gosse. There is no excuse for omitting such a study before publishing- 
descriptions of species as new, in view of the full lists of -new rotifers published at 
intervals by Mr. Gliarles Bousselet (’93 and ’97), with the titles of the papers in which 
the descriptions are published. If a student finds himself unable to see a large share 
of these papers it is his duty to recognize the fact that he is not in a position to 
publish names of new species. If he wishes to publish his notes and drawings, these 
may be of great use to other workers, but if he proceeds to append new names to his 
descriptions, increasing the already heavy burden of synonymy, his work becomes a 
positive injury to science and a nuisance to all careful scientific students. The record 
of American workers on the Botifera has not always been so good in this matter as 
might be wished. In the American paper above referred to as giving names to 
“ presumably undescribed ” species, six so-called new species are figured on the plate, 
with new specific names in the descriptions. Of these six, four are easily recognizable 
as old friends by anyone familiar with the recent literature of the subject, while 
the other two are thought by another reviewer to be old species. This illustrates the 
value of the description of “ presumably new ” species without comparison with those 
described in recent papers. Science is burdened with four, perhaps six, new synonyms. 
Another mistake to be avoided, as has been emphasized by Bousselet (j96), is the 
