CHUNIPHYES. 261 



the larger, and that there is a prominent basal tooth on the right hand side, 

 while the corresponding angle on the left side is merely acute and somewhat 

 prominent. Two inferior nectophores, agreeing perfectly with those of D. mitra, 

 were referred, doubtfully by Lens and Van Riemsdijk, to D. chamissonis ( = D. 

 weberi Lens and Van Riemsdijk), and these authors have noted the close resem- 

 blance between them and Bedot's figures of the corresponding nectophores of 

 his D. gracilis { = D. mitra), in which the hj'droecium is apparently open as it 

 is in the "Albatross" specimen. This feature alone, is sufficient to show that 

 Bedot's D. gracilis has nothing to do with Gegenbaur's D. gracilis, which is a 

 synonym of Diphyes appendiculata (p. 248). And the structure of both necto- 

 phores shows that D. gracilis Bedot, is identical with D. mitra. 



Cormidia. The position of this specis in Diphyopsis rather than in 

 Diphyes rests on the discovery, by Lens and Van Riemsdijk, of a special necto- 

 phore in the groups of appendages. In the "Albatross" material even the 

 most advanced cormidia bear only one bud, not yet old enough to show its final 

 destination (Plate 11, fig. 6). 



D. mitra occurred regularly on all our lines, both on surface, and in inter- 

 mediate hauls. It was not taken in closing nets. Huxley's specimen was taken 

 in the Indian Ocean, southeast of Mauritius. The Atlantic series, in the Museum 

 of Comparative Zoology, shows that it is common among the West Indies. The 

 possibility that it may be identical with Diphyopsis hispaniana Mayer, likewise 

 a West Indian species, has been noted (p. 244), but I do not feel sufficiently sure 

 to include this in the synonymy. 



CHUNIPHYES Lens and Van Riemsdijk, 1908. 



Until we know the structure of the groups of appendages in this genus, 

 it is impossible to formulate a final definition for it. I retain it in the sense used 

 by its proposers, because the general structure of the nectophores of its type 

 and single representative is sufficiently characteristic to warrant generic sepa- 

 ration. My reasons for including it among the Diphyopsiinae are given above 

 (p. 241). 



In addition to the specimens listed below I have had the advantage of 

 studying the more extensive series collected by Mr. G. H. Fowler in the Bay of 

 Biscaj^ (Bigelow, :11b, p. 348). Comparison of the two collections has con- 

 vinced me that the differences in the form of the nectosac and of the somatocyst 

 described below (p. 263), are so slight and inconstant as to be quite worthless as 



