SYSTEMATIC AND BIOLOGICAL ACCOUNT 149 



of Haeckel's Challenger [not type] specimens, and (b) some ' Dana ' specimens, some of both (a and b) 

 of which have small inferior nectophores attached within the hydroecium. (3) These 'Challenger' 

 and ' Dana ' young inferior nectophores differ from those inferior nectophores amongst Quoy and 

 Gaimard's types. (4) One of Haeckel's 'Challenger' colonies (complete) has an inferior nectophore 

 resembling Quoy and Gaimard's types. (5) It thus seems certain that these are the same two species 

 in both Quoy and Gaimard's and Haeckel's samples. But Dr Sears does specify the resemblances and 

 differences alluded to. She goes on to say that (6) Lens and van Riemsdijk (1908) can be considered 



Nam 



Apoph 



Whydr 



Whydl 



Tad 



Prol ch 



Tad 



Tovr 



To.vl 



Text-fig. 77. Abyla schmidti Sears. A, specimen from 'Discovery II' St. 1581, x 5-5; B, lateral view of anterior nectophore, 

 'Mabahiss' St. 131, x 5-4; C, view from above of some specimen as A, x 5-5 ; D, baso-lateral view of posterior nectophore 

 from 'Discovery II' St. 1585, x 5-6. 



to have designated the superior nectophores of Quoy and Gaimard as the types of Abyla trigona, 

 because they compared their specimens of anterior nectophores of ' Abyla trigona ' [in my opinion 

 probably A. schmidti, A.K.T.] with those of Quoy and Gaimard and found them to be identical ' in all 

 respects' [Dr Sears refers Lens & van Riemsdijk's posterior nectophores of 'Abyla trigona' to 

 A. schmidti]. (7) Since the inferior nectophores of Quoy and Gaimard's types apparently belong to 

 the same species as the complete colony and three superior nectophores in Haeckel's ' Challenger ' 

 sample [in B.M. Coll.], she considers it appropriate to designate these as carina. 



From this I gather that Dr Sears regards Haeckel's ' Challenger ' anterior nectophores (but not the 

 posterior ones) and Quoy and Gaimard's type posterior nectophores (but not anterior ones) as Abyla 



