284 
Proboscis der Hydranthen ist nach vortrefflich conservierten Exem- 
plaren zu urtheilen nicht conisch sondern wie bei den Campanu- 
lariden trompetenformig,” I cannot doubt that he here speaks about 
the expanded proboscis. Besides in the monograph of Hincks, 
we find figures of the. contracted campanularian proboscis also in a 
paper of Pietet 1 ), in which he figures a number of C/ytøa-species, 
the proboscis of which he designates as “hypostome en trompette”, 
but according to the figures it is club-shaped, and the same form 
shows the proboscis of Hebella lata Pietet, the hydrothecae of 
which are mueh more campanulate than in most members of the 
fami ly Campanulariidae. 
According to the systematic arrangement expressed in the 
above diagnosis, all the operculate forms have been referred to the 
two families, the Campanulinidae and the Sertulariidae, and all 
the inoperculate to the Lafoeidae and the Campanulariidae. While 
the presence of an operculum sharply divides the operculate from 
the inoperculate families, the two families contained in each of 
the two groups are not sharply divided from each other by a single 
character, if we do not possess such a difference between the 
Campanulariidae and the Lafoeidae in the form of the proboscis. 
Broch 2 ) and Kramp 3 ) believe they find such a distinguishing 
character in the different appearance of the gonothecae, which 
according to these authors in the Lafoeidae always present them¬ 
selves united into more or less densely crowded aggregates (“Cop- 
pinia”, “Scapus”), while in the Campanulariidae they appear singly. 
But in both families there are a number of exceptions to this rule. 
In the Lafoeidae large singly placed gonothecae have been found 
in Lafoea (Halisiphoniu) megalotheca Allm. 4 ); Hebella calcarata 
Ag. 5 ) and H. cylindrica v. Lend. 6 ), and by the present author in 
*) 46. 
2 ) 13, p. 
3 ) 80, p. 370—71. 
4 ) 5. 
5 ) 6 a, p. 122, figs. 190—191. 
6 ) 46. p. 41, pi. II, fig. 36. 
