I4 g DISCOVERY REPORTS 



characteristic, whilst Gegenbaur's (1859) are not so satisfactory as Huxley's. Haeckel (18886) gave 

 more elaborate drawings of A. carina, but the gonophores were not shown with sufficient detail. 

 Bedot (1896) figured the only bract he saw at Amboina, but not the gonophores. Lens & van Riemsdijk 

 (1908) again failed to give details of gonophores. Moser (1925) was the first to give a detailed sketch 

 of the gonophores, but did not show an optical section of the mouth-plate from the side, a detail that 

 is necessary for specific identification. In Part v of Kawamura's (191 5) paper on Caliconectid Siphono- 

 phorae (translated in typescript by Rodney Notomi, and a copy generously presented to me by Woods 

 Hole Oceanographic Institute), there are some useful original figures of Abylines. Figs. 27 and 28 of 

 plate xv, labelled A. trigona from Misaki are good, but these again omit essential details of the 

 gonophores. 



Whydr 



W.hydl. Xf- 



Tov.1 



Tovr 



Text-fig. 76. Abyla schmidti. A, B, C, D, different views of a detached anterior nectophore from 'Discovery II' St. 1588 

 250-100 m., x 5-5. Note the slight asymmetry characteristic of all such nectophores; E, F, G, three views of distal end of 

 a posterior nectophore from 'Discovery II' St. 1587. 



For comparison with the new Indian Ocean species of Abyla schmidti I give figures of the following: 

 (1) type specimens of A. trigona Q. & G., kindly lent by the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris 

 (PL XII) ; (2) type specimens of A. carina Haeckel (Text-fig. 75 B) ; (3) a specimen of A. trigona from 

 ' Discovery II ' Station 2067 (Text-fig. 75 A), all these three from the Canaries region of the Atlantic; 

 (4) a specimen of a related species A. tottoni Sears from 'Discovery II' Station 1 178 in the eastern 

 South Atlantic (Text-fig. 75 C); (5) another related but unnamed new species from 'Discovery II' 

 Stations 709 and 711 in the western South Atlantic (Text-fig. 74). 



Dr Sears states that both Quoy and Gaimard and Haeckel were confusing two (the same two) 

 species in their accounts of A. trigona and A. carina. Her argument is that (1) Quoy and Gaimard's 

 type anterior nectophores were too small to have been linked to the type posterior nectophores, which 

 probably do not belong to them, (2) Quoy and Gaimard's type anterior nectophores resemble (a) some 



