i 4 o DISCOVERY REPORTS 



Similar records for this spotted species in open hauls are : 



Moser (1925, p. 122) gave a complicated account of the gonophore, which in some respects does not 

 fit the facts as I have checked them. It is important to separate descriptive matter from hypothesis 

 about phylogeny. The simple fact seems to be that the dorsal and lateral radial canals of the nectosac 

 of the gonophore do not underlie the respective ridges, but are disposed much as in abyline gonophores. 

 It is quite unnecessary, therefore, to put forward such a fantastic hypothesis as that used by Moser. 



So/71 



/Vi 



Text-fig. 71. Heteropyramis maculata. A, eudoxid, 'Discovery' St. 129, 950-780 m. ; A', diagrammatic transverse section of 

 gonophore, B, C, bract of eudoxid, ' Discovery II ' St. 2927, 750-500 m. ; D, nectophore, ' Discovery II ' St. 2927, 750-500 m. 

 All figures x 15. 



She supposes that a four-ridged gonophore of Diphyid type (Moser's text-fig. 28 1) is rotated through 

 45 on its longitudinal axis and that the right ventral ridge then comes into collision with the stem 

 and divides into two to give a five-angled gonophore. She denied what seems to be the truth that 

 there is present an extra dorsal ridge as in Abylinae. 



Both polygastric and eudoxid stages of Heteropyramis suggest affinities with Chimiphyes and Abylinae. 

 In particular the gonophore has a median dorsal ridge, and the two interesting basal vessels of the 

 phyllocyst not only can be homologized with the pair of basal vessels in the phyllocyst of the peculiarly 

 small bract of Chuniphyes spp. but also with the 'horns' of the phyllocyst of Ceratocymba spp. and 

 other Abylids. 



