PHYSOPHORAE. 267 



Just below the point of attachment of the nectophore, its somatic canal 

 gives off a short transverse branch. It connects with the subumbrella by a 

 single trunk as is usual. At about the mid-level of the bell-cavity there are a 

 pair of short branches. Finally just below the lower level of the nectosac there 

 is a single dorsoventral branch. Below this point the axial somatic canal runs 

 in a wavy course to the extremity of the nectophore. Owing to the condition 

 of the specimen I could not trace the subumbral canals. 



Gonophore. The specimen has one small gonophore, apparently 9 , and 

 the bud for a second one. The older gonophores, if any had been developed, 

 have been detached. 



The siphon is of the usual type, the tentacle has been stripped of most of 

 the tentilla. Such of the latter as are intact are too j'oung to show their final 

 form. The specimen is colorless. 



Physophorae Eschscholtz, 1829. 

 Physoneduc Haeckel, 1888. 



Five families of Physophorae, Apolemidae, Agalmidae, Physophoridae, 

 Forskaliidae, and Anthophysidae, are so generally accepted and seem so well 

 founded that their status need not be discussed. There is every reason to 

 believe that each of them represents a natural grouping of intimately related 

 species. The Nectaliidae of Haeckel (represented by the genus Nectalia) is 

 retained as a separate family by Chun ('97b), but united with the Agalmidae 

 by Schneider ('98) . For the reason given elsewhere (p. 289) Nectalia is considered 

 more closely allied to the Agalmidae than to other Physophorids ; but its diver- 

 gence from its nearest allies is sufficiently great to warrant a subfamily at least. 



In addition to these families there is another group of genera which must 

 be included in this order, namely the forms united by Haeckel in his order 

 Auronectae. Claus ('89) long ago pointed out that the resemblance of the 

 Auronectae to the Physophorids was so close that they actuallj^ formed a 

 family of the latter, a conclusion subsequently supported by Chun ('97b), by 

 Schneider ('98), and by Lens and Van Riemsdijk (:08). 



Since the status of Haeckel's Auronectae is discussed in detail in con- 

 nection with the description of the "Albatross" representatives of the group, 

 it will suffice to say that I entirely subscribe to the foregoing view. Chun em- 

 ployed the name Auronectidae for the family, but this name is invalid because 

 not derived from a generic name. Schneider and Lens and Van Riemsdijk 



