io 4 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



As I suspected, they were all, with the exception of one rogue {Sulculeolaria quadrivalvis), repre- 

 sentatives of S. turgida (Gegenbaur). I carefully examined, after staining, eighty-five posterior 

 (inferior) nectophores from Station 297 and found that they all possessed the simply rounded, undivided 

 lamella of S. turgida (Gbr). The fifty-five anterior (superior) nectophores that I examined from the 

 same station all had the minute somatocyst and conformation of the base of the nectophore characteristic 

 of S. turgida. The specimens were not in very good condition, and I did not check the presence, or 

 run of the lateral commissural canals. 



The problem has been to link up the anterior and posterior nectophores of the various ' Galetta ' 

 forms so as to define species, and then to see if we can apply the specific name australis to any of them. 

 But the natural desire to retain Quoy & Gaimard's name should not blind us to the danger of 

 a perpetuation of the present state of confusion. This review of ' Galetta ' australis, then, shows that 

 whilst it is possible that Quoy & Gaimard's specimen came from off Algoa Bay, this is by no means 

 certain. Also that in this area are to be found three species of ' Galetta ' which can be separated by 

 their posterior nectophores as well as by their anterior ones. Quoy & Gaimard only figured the 

 anterior nectophore of 'G.' australis, and that very inadequately. It seems doubtful on the whole 

 whether it will ever be possible now to use the name australis correctly. I have now found the 

 North Atlantic 'G.' biloba (Text-figs. 49-51), with which I am well acquainted, in the Indian Ocean. 

 It is worth while mentioning this to confirm Bigelow's statement that the identity of the Atlantic 

 biloba with an Indo-Pacific species has been sufficiently established by comparison of series from the 

 different oceans. It is a dioecious species which has been taken abundantly by the Marine Biological 

 Association, Plymouth, in the Celtic Sea; by the Irish Fisheries Board; and at Valencia Island by 

 Miss Delap, who noted its ability to jump out of the water, made interesting sketches of it and its 

 developmental stages and presented specimens to the British Museum. 



It is of interest to record that had it not been for a chance invitation to Robert Prescott of Latymer 

 School, a member of the Museum's Junior Naturalist Club, to do some plankton sorting, the presence 

 of 'G.' biloba in the Indian Ocean might not have been demonstrated, and the whole question of 

 ' Galetta ' species might have remained in confusion. 



[Galetta] Sulculeolaria biloba (Sars), 1846. 



Galeolaria australis Bigelow, 191 lb, pi. 5, fig. 8; Bigelow, 1918. 



Galeolaria australis Candeias, 1929 (part C, fig. 3). 



Non Galetta australis Bigelow & Sears, 1937 (? = 'C turgida). 



Sars's (1846) figures of this species are very accurate. His fig. 16 shows not only the characteristic 

 somatocyst, but also the minute indentation in the base of the nectophore or roof of the hydroecium 

 that houses the terminal end of the stem. Sars's fig. 17 of the young posterior nectophore shows, under 

 a lens, the characteristic ' duplex curve ' of the lamella. I feel obliged to discard the name Galetta 

 australis which Bigelow has used for biloba as being impossible to apply to any zoological concept, and 

 to use for this widely distributed and adequately figured species its original name Sulculeolaria biloba 

 (Sars), 1846. Anyone who is familiar with the North Atlantic species would say at once of Sars's 

 figure ' that is the species ', whereas we shall probably always be in doubt about Quoy & Gaimard's 

 Galetta australis, 1 which was figured in such a way that it might represent any one of several 

 Sulculeolariine species known to-day. 



Distribution. Under the name G. australis Q. & G. Bigelow (1918) reported on thirty specimens 

 of this species from surface and intermediate hauls in the Western Atlantic ; and could find no distinc- 

 tion between them and series from the North and South Pacific. Lens & van Riemsdijk (1908) 



1 Bigelow held the contrary opinion. 



