244 DIPHYOPSIIXAE. 



but with a small second nectophore still attached, s;hows that it is really a Diphyid. 

 The figures of Diphyopsis diphyoides, by Lens and \'au Riemsdijk (:08), who 

 also observed the bud for the inferior nectophore, agree so closely with D. mitra, 

 even to trivial details, that there is no escaping the conclusion that the two arc 

 identical. The specimens described from Amboina by Bedot ('96) as D. gracilis 

 Gegenbaur also resemble D. mitra so closely in the form of both anterior and 

 posterior nectophores that they too must be referred to it. They are discussed 

 in the description below (p. 260). 



Diphyopsis mitra has not been recorded from the Atlantic, nor does it 

 agree with any Atlantic species, unless perhaps D. hispaniana Mayer. It is 

 true that it differs from the figure of the latter in having a shorter somatocyst 

 and a more pronounced dorsobasal tooth; but the fact that the collection of 

 this Museum contains a series of typical D. mitra from the West Indies suggests 

 that the two may be identical. 



D. chamissonis Huxley, like D. mitra, has been classed by both Haeckel 

 ('88b) and Chun ('92) as a Monophyid. But the remarkably close resemblance 

 between Huxley's figures and the figures given by Lens and Van Riemsdijk of 

 their Diphyopsis weheri, which is certainly a Diphyid, because it had the buds 

 for the inferior nectophore, leaves little question that the two are identical. 

 The "Albatross" collection contains no representatives of this species, but 

 I have studied typical examples from the Philippines, \\liether or not the 

 specimens described as Muggiaea kochii by Murbach and Shearer are the same as 

 D. chamissonis, as they suppose, can not be determined from their brief descrip- 

 tion (without figures). But the D. chamissonis of Browne (:04, pi. 54, fig. 6) 

 from the Maldives no doubt belongs here. 



D. subtiloides Lens and Van Riemsdijk, though closely allied to the Atlantic 

 D. subtilis Chun, is easily distinguished from the latter by the characters noted 

 below (p. 247). In general form it closely resembles Muggiaea kochii, but Lens 

 and Van Riemsdijk observed the bud for an inferior nectophore, which places 

 it definitely among the Diphyopsiinae. 



Next we must consider a group of species which agree in their narrow- 

 pyramidal form, long somatocyst, and prominently developed dorsobasal and 

 laterobasal teeth; these are D. indica, D. malayana, and D. gegenbauri of Lens 

 and Van Riemsdijk, the Doromasia pictoides of the same authors, and Diphijes 

 {" Doromasia ") bojani Chun. 



The first three are separated only by such minor characters as size, degree 

 of serration, shape of lateral teeth, number of ridges at the apex, and the presence 



