evil one," which has been substituted in the Revised Version of the Lord's Prayer.

CONCLUSION.

The general result of our review of the Revised Version is the following:

That many of the long-acknowledged faults or defects in the Authorised Version have been corrected, and the translation in the Revised Version has now been brought into more accurate harmony with the original, the force and meaning of which are rendered more clear by the changes in many places, and liability to misconception is removed in others.

That the extreme literalness of the Revised Version will be a valuable help to students of the New Testament, while at the same time it has involved numerous changes and departures from English idiom that are much to be regretted; for the excessive number of changes made, as the result of this extreme literalness, and of rules self-imposed by the Revisionists, have not been called for by "faithfulness" or

necessity" in the sense of the instructions given by Convocation, and are likely to prejudice the reader and operate against the acceptance of the Revised Version as a substitute for the Authorised Version.

That the numerous changes in the Greek text, sometimes noted, but more frequently adopted into the Revised Version without notice, and the doubt thrown by marginal notes upon other portions which are still retained unaltered, are much to be regretted in a work like the New Testament, which is placed before learned and unlearned readers alike, without any means being supplied for solving their doubts; and the question has still to be settled, whether in accepting the testimony of and B as practically conclusive of the text, the Revisers have adopted the most faithful witnesses to the sacred words or only the oldest MSS. at present known.

But that, in spite of all the alterations called for by carping criticism, by anxious, loving care, by passing theories of interpretation, or by simple solicitude for critical accuracy, the New Testament is substantially unchanged in vital particulars; and if, for example, a Mahomedan, a Parsee, or a follower of Confucius or Buddha should desire to learn for himself what Christianity is from its own sacred books, it would be practically immaterial whether the Authorised or the Revised Version was placed in his hands. In both alike he would find the same Christ, and from either of them he would learn the same ground for the Christian's hopes, and the same rules for the Christian's conduct.

ON INDIVIDUAL VARIATION AMONG

A SCIDIANS.

By W. A. HERDMAN, D.Sc., F.L.S.,

PROFESSOR OF NATURAL HISTORY IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,

LIVERPOOL.

THE specific determination of Ascidians has always been found a matter of considerable difficulty, on account of the apparent absence of reliable characteristics in many of the so-called species.

Most of the older descriptions in which only the external appearance is taken into consideration are useless, owing to the great effect which surrounding circumstances have upon the shape of an Ascidian; while even now, when we describe minutely the structure of all the more important internal organs, in some cases it seems almost impossible to find good specific characters, and to discriminate between species and varieties. The cause of this is the great amount of individual variation-the considerable difference in the anatomy of individuals admitted to belong to the same "species." My attention was first drawn to this point when I began to examine critically the "Challenger" collection of Tunicata, and I soon perceived the necessity of satisfying myself, as far as possible, as to the relative values of the specific characters generally made use of, and as to the extent of individual variation. In order to determine these points, I examined a large number of specimens of several of our common British Ascidians, and the results of part of my investigations have already been published. A first paper, read before the Royal

Physical Society of Edinburgh,* treated of the "olfactory" or dorsal tubercle only. This I found to be a very variable organ, and of comparatively little value as a specific character. In a second paper, read before the Linnæan Society of London,t I discussed the branchial sac, an organ which is considered of primary importance in specification, but which, in the case of some species at least, is liable to vary considerably. Styela grossularia, v. Ben., was one of the most interesting species which I examined, on account of its great variability and of the remarkable modification of the longitudinal folds so characteristic of the branchial sac in the Cynthiidæ and Molgulidæ. Recently I have made some additional observations upon this species, which are, I think, of sufficient morphological interest to warrant me in laying them before this Society.

One of the characters of the family Cynthiidæ, to which Styela belongs, is that the branchial sac is thrown into a number (up to twenty-four, twelve on each side of the sac) of longitudinal folds, projecting internally. In the genus Styela the normal number of such folds is eight, four on each side, and in most of the species they are large, project considerably into the cavity of the sac, and lie with their crests directed towards the dorsal edge of the sac, along which runs a median membranous fold, the dorsal lamina (see Pl. I., Fig. 1, I., II., III., IV., branchial folds; D.L. dorsal lamina). On these folds the vessels known as "internal longitudinal

* See Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc., Edin., vol. vi., p. 254, 1881.

† See Journ. Linn. Soc., vol. xv., p. 274.

This is one of our most common British forms, and on some parts of the coast is very plentiful between tide marks and in a few fathoms of water. Although variable in appearance as well as internal structure, still it is usually easily recognisable. It was first described by Van Beneden in 1847 (Mém. de l'Acad. Roy. de Belgique, t. xx.), and was noted as British by Alder in 1848. (See also British Mollusca, vol. i., p. 40.) Previously it had been considered as the young of Styela rustica, O. F. Müller.

bars" are much more numerous than on the spaces between the folds, and they are especially closely placed near the middle line or crest of the fold.

In some species of Styela (e. g., Styela flava and Styela oblonga) the folds are in a rudimentary condition. They do not project into the interior of the sac, or at most form merely low rounded ridges, whose position is chiefly indicated by the increased number of internal longitudinal bars, so that these folds may be described as longitudinal tracts along which the bars are crowded together (see Pl. I., Fig. 2, I., II., III., IV.).

In Styela grossularia there is apparently only a single fold in the branchial sac. It lies on the right side of the sac, near the dorsal edge, and is in a rather rudimentary condition, being merely a low rounded projection, on which there are a number of closely-placed internal longitudinal bars (see Pl. I., Fig. 3 br.f.). The rest of the branchial sac

is perfectly flat. But a careful examination of this area reveals an arrangement of the internal longitudinal bars which I believe indicates the position of the missing folds, and shows the stages through which a fold may pass in becoming obsolete.

As a rule, in branchial sacs, the internal longitudinal bars are equidistant, and form by their intersection with the "transverse" vessels rows of quadrangular meshes, which are approximately equal in size in any species, and contain the same number of stigmata; and in branchial sacs which are folded, and have consequently tracts along which the internal longitudinal bars are closely placed and the meshes narrow, the spaces between the folds, as a rule, have the bars equidistant and the meshes of one size. This, however, is not the case in Styela grossularia. If the branchial sac be removed, slit down the centre of the endostyle, which marks the ventral edge, and laid out on a slide, the following features will