464 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
The change of the familiar name Biaschiza is regrettable, but is 
seemingly made unavoidable by the inclusion of Biglena catellina, 
of Ehrenberg and Gosse. De Beauchamp* objects to identifying 
Ehrenberg’s animal with Muller’s Cercaria catellina, reproducing 
the figures of Muller and Weber. We are quite willing to admit 
that Muller’s figure is, to say the least, poor, but Weber’s is not 
a great deal better, especially if consideration is given to the im¬ 
provements made in optical instruments in the interval between 
1786 and 1888. The usual custom in similar doubtful cases is to 
abide by the choice of the “first reviser”, a distinction clearly 
belonging to Ehrenberg. As he claims to have recognized Cercaria 
catellina Muller, the simplest and most consistent procedure is to 
accept the identification as correct. Denying it would not dispose 
of the generic name Biglena; although this was originally defined 
by a synonymic citation only, there is no doubt about the identity 
of the animal for which Ehrenberg created the genus. His figure 
in the Infusionsthierchen of 1838 is unmistakable and this species 
must remain the type of Biglena, whether it retains the specific 
name catellina (Muller) or the next available, probably granulans 
Weisse, used for the male; for the reasons given above it seems 
preferable to use catellina (Muller). However, this had already 
been made the type of a genus Cephalodella by Bory de St. Vincent 
in his compilation of 1826, which under the circumstances may be 
considered fortunate, as it obviates the displacement of the name 
Biaschiza by Biglena Ehrenberg, which has long been used for 
the forcipate Notommatids. Such transpositions are very confus¬ 
ing, even when absolutely unavoidable. 
Biaschiza Gosse is not tenable under any circumstances; Du jar- 
din created a genus Plagiognatha in 1841, designating as type P. 
felis, in his opinion identical with Muller’s Vorticella felis, but his 
figure shows beyond reasonable doubt that the animal he actually 
studied was Ehrenberg’s Furcularia gihha, more familiar as 
Biaschiza gihba. Consequently, as Biaschiza can not possibly be 
retained, the least objectionable solution appears to be the resur¬ 
rection of Cephalodella Bory de St. Vincent, a course already sug¬ 
gested by Eyferth (Einfachsten Lebensformen, 1878, p. 83, 
Biglena) : 
“ . . . D. catelliria, die gemeinste von alien, ist jedenfalls abzutrennen. 
In der Form des Kauers und der Derbheit der Cutieula steht sie (wie Notom- 
Soc. Zool. France, vol. 38, 1914, p. 291 ff. 
