RHIZOPHYSA FILIFORMIS. 319 



complex tentilla; and it is in every way desirable to maintain this position for 

 the sake of definitely locating the old descriptions. But I may point out that 

 in none of the accounts of the genera before that of Gegenbaur ('53) were the 

 tentilla described in detail. 



Rhizophysa filiformis (ForskAl) Lamarck. 



Physsophora filiformis Forskal, 1775, p. 120; 1776, tab. 33, fig. F; Modeer, 1789, p. 282; G.melin, 



1790, p. 31.59. 

 Rhizophysa planenloma Peron and Lesueur, '07, pi. 39, fig. 3; Eschscholtz, '29, p. 1-17; Blainville, 



'34, p. 118; Lesson, '43, p. 491. 

 Rhizophysa filiformis Lamarck, '16, p. 477; Blainville, '34, p. 118; Lesson, '43, p. 490; Gegenbaur, 



'53, p. 324, pL 18, fig. 5-11; Haeckel, '88b, p. 329; Chun, '97b, p. 104; Schneider, '98, p. 170; 



Richter, : 07, p. 559, taf. 27, fig. 1-13; Lens and Van Riemsdijk, : 08, p. 100, pi. 18, fig. 141-145. 

 Epibulia filiformis Eschscholtz, '29, p. 148. 

 Rhizophysa gracilis Fewkes, '82a, p. 269, pi. 6, fig. 1-6. 

 Cannophysa gracilis Haeckel, '88a, p. 44. 



Cannophysa murrayana Haeckel, '88a, p. 44; '88b, p. 324, pi. 24. 

 Pneuinophysa gege7ibauri Haeckel, '88b, p. 328. 

 Cannophysa eysenhardtii M.\yer, '94, p. 239, pi. 3, fig. 1-4. 

 Rhizophysa murrayana Chun, '97b, p. 84; Mayer, : 00, p. 72. 

 ? Epibulia (Macrosotna) merlensi Brandt, '35, p. 32. 

 ? Rhizophysa merlensi Lesson, '43, p. 492; Haeckel, '88b, p. 329. 

 ? Pneumophysa merlensi Haeckel, '88b, p. 45. 

 ? Cannophysa filiformis Mayer, '94, p. 241, pi. 3, fig. 3. 

 ? Rhizophysa clavigera Chun, '97b, p. 104. 



Station 4638 300 fathoms to surface 1 specimen, pneumatophore, 4 cor- 



midia. 

 " 4707 " " " " " specimen, pneumatophore 8 mm. 



long, 3 cormidia. 

 " 4715 " " " " " specimen, pneumatophore, lack- 



ing stem, 9 cormidia. 

 " 4730 " " " " " specimen, pneumatophore, 4 cor- 



midia. 

 All of the specimens came up on the dredging M'ire, and all were fragmentary; 

 those individuals in which trifid tentilla were detected are included here. Their 

 condition was too poor to allow me to add anything to the accounts given by 

 Gegenbaur ('53), by Haeckel ('88b), and by- Lens and Van Riemsdijk (:08). 

 The description and figures by the latter authors are especially pertinent since 

 they give the only detailed account of Indo-Pacific specimens of the species. 



The capture of this species in the Eastern Tropical Pacific and its previously 

 known distribution in the Mediterranean, in various parts of the Tropical Atlantic, 

 and in the Malaysian Region ("Siboga") indicate that its range, like that of so 

 many other pelagic Coelenterates, extends over the warmer waters of all oceans. 



