i28 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



as long ago as 191 1, said that the eudoxid was so well known as to require no description. The 

 explanation of this paradox is that Bigelow mistook the eudoxid of Eudoxia mitra for that of this 

 species. 



In the Mediterranean Chelophyes appendiculata is very common. Its seasonal and geographical 

 distribution was worked out by Bigelow & Sears (1937), although 'Thor' did not provide them with 

 any material of the eudoxid stage. 



On searching the literature for descriptions and figures of eudoxids that might be those of 

 Ch. appendiculata we find first of all that Leuckart (1853) described and figured Eudoxia campanula, 

 a common eudoxid which he found at Nice. I have found it near there too. The immature eudoxids 

 he described and figured well in figs. 17 and 19 of his plate ill, but the details of the loose gonophore 

 (his fig. 19) are not so well shown. He came to the conclusion, without being able to prove it, that 

 it could be the eudoxid only of his Diphyes acuminata (Chelophyes appendiculata). In this I agree 

 with him. 



Leuckart's paper was shortly afterwards followed by Gegenbaur's (1853) figure and description 

 of Eudoxia messanensis from Messina. He does not mention E. campanula Leuckart because his work 

 was already in the press when Leuckart's appeared, though he does refer to the paper in an appendix. 

 The bract does not show the deep cavity, nor the gonophore the long apophysis that are characteristic 

 of the eudoxid of Chelophyes appendiculata. I think that Eudoxia messanensis may be the eudoxid of 

 Lensia conoidea; it is not that of Chelophyes appendiculata. Eudoxia lessonii Eschscholtz (1829) is 

 neither convincingly figured nor does it form part of a well-defined fauna, so that we cannot be sure 

 of its identity. 



The identity of McCrady's (1857) E. alata has been discussed by Moser (1925). I agree that there 

 seems no reason to believe that it is the eudoxid of Chelophyes appendicidata. 



Schneider (1896, p. 581) copied Gegenbaur's figure (1853, pi. 16, fig. 20) of the larva of what is 

 now known as Galetta turgida but was, in error, then called Diphyes sieboldii by Gegenbaur ; and labelled 

 it D. appendiculata. Five pages later he gives it its proper name, D. turgida. At the same time, on 

 plate 45, Schneider figured an eudoxid of unknown parentage, apparently from Naples, as the eudoxid 

 of D. appendiculata. The gonophore, from its size and the minuteness of the gonadial part, would 

 appear to be spent. It can scarcely be the eudoxid of any Mediterranean diphyid except Lensia 

 conoidea. The figure certainly does not represent the eudoxid of Chelophyes appendiculata. 



Moser (1925), p. 245 says that the eudoxid of Ch. appendiculata so closely resembles, especially 

 in its young stages, that of Muggiaea kochii that they are difficult to distinguish, but that it comes to 

 exceed the latter in size. She notes in the eudoxid of Chelophyes appendiculata the presence of a rela- 

 tively long, flattened apophysis to the gonophore, its freedom from the bract and the shallowness 

 of its suture and of the cavity under the bract; her accompanying Text-fig. 39 is not characteristic 

 of the eudoxid of Ch. appendiculata which has a deep bracteal cavity. She says (on p. 240) that since 

 the eudoxid of Muggiaea kochii, Galetta subtilis and G. truncata (Lensia conoidea) were all found at 

 Villefranche a determination of the differences was possible. She figured them on pis. I and IV. Her 

 figure (pi. xii, fig. 8) is a good representation of the eudoxid of Chelophyes appendiculata. 



Moser did not succeed in getting Ch. appendiculata to separate off its cormidia till the month of 

 May, when one specimen gave off thirty eudoxids in two days. These remained alive under observation 

 for ten days. Moser (1925) figured these immature eudoxids on pi. xn in figs. 4-7. In the oldest 

 of the figured specimens the bract had metamorphosed into the eudoxid condition. Her fig. 8 of an 

 eudoxid of unknown parentage taken in a plankton haul gives a good representation of the common 

 Diphyid eudoxids that I found at Villefranche in March, April, May and June 1949, and which 

 I believe to be those of Ch. appendicidata. These eudoxids were shedding their ripe, active gonophores 



