242 DIPHYOPSIINAE. 



Diphyopsis compressa Haeckel, var. picta Bedot agree very closelj^ with each 

 other, in the shape of the anterior nectophore. The first three were long ago 

 united by Huxley ('59). This reduction is accepted by Schneider ('98), and Chun 

 ('97b, p. 27), who has retained both dispar and campanulijera , the former for a 

 Pacific, the latter for an Atlantic form, considers that they are " Ausserordent- 

 liche nah" to each other. Lens and Van Riemsdijk again separate dispar and 

 campanulifera. They record a large series as Diphyopsis campanulifera on the 

 strength of the presence of special nectophores in the groups of appendages, and 

 a single specimen which apparently lacked these structures as Diphycs dispar. 

 Even if special nectophores were absent in this individual, it is not clear why 

 they record it under the specific name dispar, when they themselves say that 

 the description by Chamisso and Eysenhardt shows that the original specimens 

 of dispar had such organs. But, apart from this criticism, the condition of 

 their single specimen was such that it could not show whether it was a Diphyes 

 or a Dyphyopsis. Although the stem bore fourteen "developed groups" of 

 appendages, the fact that no gonophores but merely "some small buds" were 

 present, shows that all the cormidia were very young, the older ones having 

 been detached. In the one in which they figure that there was, in addition to 

 bract, siphon, and tentacle, only one very small bud, which might develop equally 

 well into gonophore, into nectophore, or into both, as in Doromasia picta (Chun, 

 '92). The large size of the specimen has no bearing. It is a question of the 

 state of development of the individual cormidia, not of the colony as a whole. 

 In its general form it agreed perfectly with their specimens of Diphyopsis cam- 

 panulifera, and was no doubt identical with them. On the grounds of priority 

 dispar takes preference over campanulifera. 



The angustata of Agassiz and Mayer likewise belongs to Diphyopsis dispar 

 as I am convinced from an examination of their specimens from the Fiji Islands, 

 and of Mayer's (:06) material from the Hawaiian Islands. 



According to Lens and Van Riemsdijk, Diphyes nierstraszi is separated 

 from Diphyopsis dispar ( = campanulifera) by the absence of special nectophores, 

 by smaller size, slender form, and greater length of stem between the groups of 

 appendages. The first of these statements is not well grounded. On the con- 

 trary, the small size of the specimens (7-15 mm. long) indicates that the absence 

 of special nectophores is evidence of immaturity of the cormidia, a conclusion 

 supported by the fact that the authors observed only four groups of appendages 

 in any specimen. So far as size and form are concerned, the former indicates 

 nothing more than an early stage in growth ; and the latter is of no more value, 



