DIPHYOPSIINAE. 241 



present subfamily of series of species parallel in this respect fully deserves recog- 

 nition. Such a difference is of much too great phylogenetic* significance to be 

 classed as a mere specific character. 



Chuniphyes of Lens and Riemsdijk belongs here also. Although the 

 authors who described it could give it no systematic position, the structure of a 

 specimen in the present collection with both nectophores still connected, shows 

 that it is certainly a Diphyid. Unfortunately all of the specimens yet taken 

 lack the older groups of appendages, so it is impossible to state certainly whether 

 special nectophores are developed. For that reason it is possible that the genus 

 ought to be placed in the Galeolariinae ; but the pyramidal form of the nectophore 

 and the strongly marked ridges support rather an affinity with the present 

 subfamily. The species is so different in its general form from any known 

 Diphyid that it is certainly entitled to generic rank. 



The excellent condition of the present series of Diphyes and of Diphyopsis 

 together with the rich collection of both these genera in the Museum of Com- 

 parative Zoology, warrant an attempt at a much needed revision of their species. 



The species described from the Pacific and Indian Oceans may be con- 

 sidered first. They are : — 



Diphyes dispar Chamisso and Eysenhardt, since recorded by Brandt ('35), 

 by Huxley ('59), and by Lens "and Van Riemsdijk (: 08) ; D. appendiculata Esch- 

 scholtz, since recorded by Huxley ('59), Agassiz and ALayer (:02), and myself 

 (:04); D. angustata Eschscholtz, since recorded by Agassiz and Mayer ('99, :02); 

 D. mitra Huxley ; D. chamissonis Huxlej^ since recorded by Browne ( : 04) ; 

 D. gracilis Gegenbaur, recorded by Bedot ('96), Diphyopsis campanulifera 

 Eschscholtz, recorded by Browne ( :04) and by Lens and Van Riemsdijk (:08); 

 D. co7npressa Haeckel, recorded by Bedot ('96) as var. picia. Also the following 

 new species, described by Lens and Van Riemsdijk: — Diphyes contorta, D. nier- 

 straszi, D. indica, D. malayana, D. gegenbauri, D. subtiloides, Diphyopsis diphy- 

 oides, D. weberi, D. anomala, and Chuniphyes muUidentata, all from the"Siboga" 

 collection. To these must be added an Eudoxid, indistinguishable, according 

 to them, from the monogastric generation of the Atlantic D. bipartita Costa 

 ( = D. sieboldii Kolliker), as well as their own Doromasia pictoides. Finally the 

 "Albatross" specimens described below, show that the specimen described by 

 Chun ('92) as Doromasia bojani on the supposition that no inferior nectophore 

 was present, unquestionably belongs here. 



D. dispar Chamisso and Eysenhardt, D. campanulifera Eschscholtz, D. 

 nierstraszi Lens and Van Riemsdijk, D. anomala Lens and Van Riemsdijk, and 



