IN BAPHmA, AND OF THE STEHCTUEE OF THE EPHIPPIUM. 
assertion is disproved by Leydig’s observations on the Aphides*, and those now related 
in the Daplmice. Prof. Owen, on the contrary, has maintained that buds and eggs 
are not bodies essentially ditferent in then* nature, but that we may expect to find 
every gradation between them. It will probably ere long be convenient to apply 
some distinguishing name to those egg-like ovarian products which do not require 
impregnation as a necessary antecedent to development, but for the present, at any rate 
in the Daplmice, we must call them eggs, which they more nearly resemble than ordinary 
gemmae. 
Prof. Huxley might be supposed to agree with the naturalists as to the essential differ- 
ence between eggs and buds above-mentioned, since he has proposed, developing the 
idea of which we owe the germ to Dr. Caepenter, to extend the use of the word “ indi- 
\idual ” to the whole product of one impregnation, and to designate as “ zooids ” the 
independent forms of the individual f. Prof. Huxley, however, proposes this system of 
nomenclatm’e merely as convenient, and not as expressing any fundamental, structural, 
or potential difference between eggs and buds. 
I beheve that the development of the ephippial and agamic eggs of Daphnia now 
described is sufficient evidence of the fundamental identity of eggs and buds, or rather of 
their forming parts of one and the same series, a point on which I would particularly 
insist, and the cases of agamogenesis in Cynips and many Lepidoptera are equally con- 
clusive. 
If, however, Siebold is correct in stating J that di’ones always proceed from unimpreg- 
nated eggs, and in fact that it is the presence or absence of impregnation which alone 
determines the sex of the future bee, a statement not unsupported by careful observations 
and experiments, I cannot imagine that even the most sceptical naturalists can retain 
any doubts upon the subject. 
^^^lether we retain the old nomenclature, or dropping the idea of unity in the term 
“ indii'idual ” adopt the system proposed by Prof. Huxley, we shall be met by great dif- 
ficulties and inconsistencies ; but I am not yet convinced of the superiority of the latter 
system, which w’ould prevent us from knowing whether any given specimen of certain 
animals, say for instance any Sphinx or Baphnia, was an individual or not, and according 
to which, if Siebold’s assertions are correct, there are no male individuals of the Honey-bee. 
Explanation of the Plates. 
PLATE VI. 
Fig. I. Ovary of Bapltnia Schcpffefi, shortly after the deposition of agamic eggs in the 
receptacle. 
Fig. 2. The same, a few hours later. 
* Loc. cit. t Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 1852. 
X Wahre FartJienogenesis, Ac. 
