DIPHYOPSIINAE. 243 



because specimens in the present collection of the nierstraszi type are connected 

 by an unbroken series with the broadest specimens of D. dispar. Finally, the 

 length of stem between groups of appendages, especially in preserved material, 

 is so variable that it is worthless as a specific character. There is no good 

 reason for retaining D. nierstraszi as a distinct species. 



Diphyopsis anomala was founded for a specimen with abnormal canals. 

 Lens and Van Riemsdijk themselves suggest (:08, p. 55) that it will "probably 

 be struck out before long." From its form it no doubt belongs to D. dispar. 

 With the latter we must also unite Bedot's var. picia of D. compressa Haeckel, 

 which is nothing more than a local variety. (Chun, '97b, has shown that com- 

 pressa is a synonym of D. canipanulifera Eschscholtz.) 



To settle whether or not this species is identical with the Atlantic D. cam- 

 panulifera, I have compared Pacific specimens with a series taken at various 

 localities in the Atlantic. Bearing in mind the well-known variability of D. 

 campanulifera (Chun, '97b, p. 27) I have been unable to find any characters 

 whatever to separate them. I therefore follow Huxley and Schneider in uniting 

 them. From an examination of the figure by Bory de St. Vincent ('04) of his 

 "Biphore biparti," I am convinced, as was Huxley, that it is identical with the 

 species under consideration. But Bory's name, "Salpa (bipartita) lanceolata, 

 bipartita," has never been considered a binomial, either by Huxley, by Chun, 

 or by Schneider, nor, from the text of his description, would there be any grounds 

 for so regarding it. Therefore, the next oldest name, disjmr, must be employed 

 for the compound species. 



D. appendiculata Eschscholtz, is easily distinguished from the other Pacific 

 species by the characters given below. It was thought by Huxley to be identical 

 with the Atlantic D. bipartita Costa ( = D. seeboldii Kolliker), a union accepted 

 by Schneider. Other authors, however, e. g. Chun ('97b), Vanhoffen (:06), 

 Romer (:02), and Mayer (:00), have retained bipartita as a separate species. 

 I have been able to test this question on large and very well-preserved series 

 from all three great oceans, with the result that I can not find a single character 

 to separate D. appendiculata from D. bipartita. I therefore unite them under 

 the older name. From the standpoint of geographic distribution this result 

 was to be expected, for this species is not restricted to warm waters, but attains 

 high latitudes (Romer, :02). 



D. mitra Huxley. This species was classed by Haeckel among the Alono- 

 phyidae, on the supposition that no inferior nectophore occurred ; but the pres- 

 ence of a specimen in the " Albatross " collection, agreeing with Huxley's figures, 



