ROTATORIA OF THE UNITED STATES. 
343 
“Rattnlus calyptus” G-osse (1889) (pi. xv, fig. 139). 
Tlie case stands with this species as with '‘Rattulus cimolius .” There is nothing in Gosse's 
figure or description that gives the least indication that this organism is one of the Rati ulidce. It is 
without a lorica; toes blade-shaped; brain clear; no eyes; face furnished with “ pendent veil-like 
lobes of flesh.’' The animal was marine, being found in the tide pools on the Scottish coast. 
Found also in Ireland (Hood, 1895). 
Coelopus (?) minutus Gosse (1889) (pi. xv, fig. 144). 
This species was described from a single specimen, which was nearly dead. Only its general 
appearance gave it any claim to be placed among the Rattididce, for in its other characteristics it 
gave little indication of belonging to this family. It had two eyes, wide apart; apparently 
no niastax or rotatory organ. The toe appeared to be a single short, slender spine. In place of 
mastax and trophi there was a tube leading from the anterior end to the stomach. The body was 
thick, short, and rounded; the foot short and thick. The animal was excessively minute, being 
but 0.05 mm. long. It was found in Black Loch, near Dundee, Scotland. 
Glasscott (1893) reports finding a dead specimen of this animal in Ireland, and says that the 
toes were two broad, decurved blades, exactly alike, and stretched out in a line with the body. If 
her specimen was really the same as Gosse’s, this account of the toes, of course, removes all reason 
that may have existed for considering this one of the Rattididce. 
Elosa worrallii Lord (1891) (pi. xv, fig. 140-143). 
This rotifer was assigned by Lord to the RattuUdce , so that an account of it should perhaps be 
given here. The animal is without a foot and toes, but in some respects, notably in its asymmetry, 
it perhaps does show some resemblance to the RattuUdce. I should consider that it belongs rather 
with the genus Ascomorpha; others of this genus have some points of resemblance with the 
RattuUdce. Lord's description (Lord, 1891. p. 324) is as follows (somewhat abridged): 
“ Lorica ovate, widest behind, trilobate in optical section; eyes two, one frontal, one cervical; 
trophi unsymmetrical; foot, and toes absent. The lorica, which, as stated, is three-lobed, is on the 
dorsal aspect oval, widest behind, with a posterior rounded projection, the continuation of the 
dorsal lobe. There is a peculiar crescentic opening posteriorly on the left under side, visible both 
on dorsal and ventral aspects. * * * On the sides of the head are two triangular, movable 
pieces, the points of which can be made to meet and protect the retracted corona, much as in Coelopus 
porcellus , an evident approach to the more perfect defensive armature of Dinocharis. The cervical 
eye is dark and rather large; the frontal one, which is to the right of the median line, is small and 
pale, and in many of the specimens can be easily overlooked. The mastax is long, pear-shaped, and 
three-lobed; the trophi are protrusile and asymmetrical; there is a long fulcrum, with a terminal 
knob. The left manubrium is nearly as long, while the right one is short and rudimentary. The 
stomach is generally filled with brown alimentary matter, and there is a distinct intestine, which 
in newly collected specimens is invariably of a pale-green color; neither salivary nor gastric glands 
were discoverable, and I think they would hardly have escaped notice had they been present.” 
Bothriocerca aflfinis Eichwald (1847) (pi. xv, fig. 145). 
This animal was evidently a species of Diurella, but what species it is impossible to decide, 
owing to the indefiniteness of Eichwald's figure and description. In fact it was probably described 
from observation of more than one of the smaller species of Diurella, for he says that specimens 
found in pools near Kaugern differed from those found in the Drixe, in the presence of a small 
tooth at the dorsal and ventral anterior margin of the lorica. Eichwald had thus evidently at 
least two different species before him, though they were described as one. 
Eichwald says that the “foot” (meaning what is now called the toe) had a longitudinal 
furrow; this appearance was due of course to the space between the two toes. Altogether it is 
evident that both the generic and specific names must be dropped; the former as synonymous 
with Diurella , the latter because the species is unrecognizable. 
Bothriocerca longicanda Daday (1889) (pi. xv, fig. 146). 
This marine organism Daday apparently classes with the RattuUdce . As the description is 
in Hungarian, I am unable to make use of it. In a brief German resume Daday (1890) says that 
this species differs from Bothriocerca affinis Eichwald in the fact that the anterior edge of the 
