204 NECTODROMA DUBIA. 



and Eastern Tropical Pacific, suggest that it will be found generally distributed 

 over the warmer regions of all three great oceans. So far as our present knowl- 

 edge goes, it is a much less common form than either R. plicaia or P. cymbi- 

 formis. 



NECTODROMA, gen. nov. 



Prayinae with the somatocj'st represented by a system of branching canals. 

 Subumbral canals numerous (more than four) ; they may branch or anastomose. 



The only described species referable to the genus is the type, Di-phyes 

 dubia Quoy and Gaimard. But the present collection contributes a second, 

 N. reticulata, sp. nov. (p. 206) equally well defined. 



The branching somatocyst recalls the condition in Nectopyramis among 

 Monophyids, and in Stephanophyes among Prayids. But the arrangement 

 of the subumbral canals sharply distinguishes Nectodroma from the latter. The 

 genus is included in the Prayinae rather than in the Stephanophyinae because 

 the presence of a well-developed hydroecial groove in each nectophore suggests 

 a biserial rather than a coronal arrangement of the bells. But the exact plan 

 of architecture can not be determined until complete specimens are studied. 



Nectodroma dubia (Quoy and Gaimard). 

 Plate 3, fig. 8, 9. 



Diphyes dubia Quoy and Gaimard, '34, p. 104, pi. 5, fig. 34-36. 



Praya dubia Lesson, '43, p. 143; (non Blainville, '34, p. 137, pi. 6, fig. 4). 



Rosacea dubia Schneider, '98, p. 79 (partini). 



Station 4652, 100 fathoms to surface; 2 nectophores, each about 40 mm. 

 long. 



The rediscovery of a species so long unrecorded as A^. dubia is not the least 

 interesting find in the present collection. And before proceeding with the 

 description, I must observe that comparison between the "Albatross" speci- 

 mens and Quoy and Gaimard's figures show that the latter, far from being 

 founded on an "apokryphen Art," as Chun ('97b, p. 115) believed, were in 

 reality extremely accurate representations of an important species. 



Unfortunately both of the "Albatross" nectophores are somewhat battered, 

 but they are sufficiently well preserved to allow me to give an account of their 

 more important anatomic features. 



Younger nectophore. It is probably correct to identifj^ as the younger 

 nectophore the one which is still attached to the stem (Plate 3, fig. 8), for among 

 the Prayinae it is usually the older one which is most easily detached. The 



