SYSTEMATIC AND BIOLOGICAL ACCOUNT 139 



or absent, because that is just what is found in the very peculiar and characteristic eudoxids of 

 Heteropyramis maculata (see Text-fig. 71) described and figured by Moser (1925), and since found 

 again in some numbers. It is possible, but scarcely likely, that there are two eudoxids of the same 

 remarkable shape but belonging to two distinct species, one with opaque spots and one without. We 

 find eudoxids of both kinds associated in hauls with both the spotted nectophores of H. maculata and 

 the unspotted ones of Thalassophyes crystallina. The chief reason why I shall continue for the present 

 to recognize nectophores of two species is that often quite well-preserved specimens of T. crystallina 

 are found, but none of them ever have spots, whereas the spotted nectophores of Heteropyramis 

 maculata are always poorly preserved and usually twisted and deformed. It is possible of course that 

 shrinking and deformation are correlated with opacity. But recently a good specimen of H. maculata 

 was taken by Scot. Fish. Res. V. ' Scotia'. Chuniphyes, too, is frequently much deformed, and is well 

 known for its opaque ridges. The externally well-preserved spotted nectophore of Heteropyramis 

 maculata taken at the end of June 1951 by ' Scotia' in a closing-net — 1000-250 m. — in lat. 54 15' N., 

 long. 14 32' W., enables me to confirm the resemblance of H. maculata to Thalassophyes crystallina. 

 The hydroecium is not open to the apex, as stated by Moser, and the nectophore is not flattened dorso- 

 ventrally, but has the usual Diphyid pyramidal form. The ventral side of the nectosac of the ' Scotia ' 

 specimen is broken open, and the shape of the base of the somatocyst, which may have burst into the 

 nectosac, is difficult to determine. The pedicular canal cannot be distinguished nor can the lateral 

 radial canals. In profile the apex of the nectosac is very much like that of Th. crystallina. It is shown 

 as pointed in Moser's figures. It may be noted that Moser kept these closely similar, if not identical, 

 forms wide apart in two separate families of her artificial classification, calling the former a Monophyid 

 and the latter a Diphyid. It is true that I have found no posterior nectophore that I can closely 

 associate with the spotted nectophores called Heteropyramis maculata, but I think that the relationship 

 between the two species must be a very close one, if indeed they are separate species. 



From the Indian Ocean I have one nectophore, one bract and two gonophores of eudoxids, all 

 bearing the characteristic opaque spots of H. maculata. The stations are given below : 



Further unpublished records (other than from the Indian Ocean) for this spotted species taken in 

 closing-nets are : 



18-2 



