GALEOLARIA. 235 



related to G. australis, with which it agrees in the possession of two small basal- 

 ventral wings, and the absence of either dorsal or lateral teeth. It is distin- 

 guished from the latter only by its small size (3.5-4 mm. long), and "in the 

 course of the canals which is as in Diphyopsiinae, the lateral canals not standing 

 in any connection with the ventral one " ( : 08, p. 61), as well as by a longer somato- 

 cyst. But size can not be made the basis of specific separation in the case 

 of so small a series, for of course every specimen of G. australis must at one time 

 be no longer than 3 mm. And in spite of the statement that the canals are of the 

 Diphyopsid type, the figure (Lens and Van Riemsdijk, :08, pi. 9, fig. 7) clearly 

 shows the transverse trunk connecting lateral and ventral subumbral canals 

 characteristic of other Galeolariinae. As to the length of the somatocj^st, Lens 

 and Van Riemsdijk have themselves found that this character is variable in 

 otherwise typical australis, an observation I have been able to verify in the 

 "Albatross" collection. None of the supposed diagnostic characters of chuni 

 are, then, sufficient to separate it from australis, and there is every reason to think 

 that it is the young of the latter. 



The union by Lens and Van Riemsdijk of G. inflata Chun with G. truncata 

 Sars, is probably justified though it can not be more than provisional, owing to 

 the briefness of Chun's account. With G. truncata they likewise unite the 

 Diphyes conoidea of Kefferstein and Ehlers. But although according to their 

 figure conoidea agrees well enough with truncata in the conformation of the base 

 of the anterior nectophore, its general resemblance to Diphyes appendiculata 

 is so close, that it is hard to believe that it is accidental. 



Finally I must mention Diphyes stephanomia Brandt, described from 

 Mertens's unpublished drawing. Haeckel, who was able to examine the original 

 figure, assures us that the species is a Galeolaria; but Brandt's ('35) description, 

 which is the only published account, is insufficient to establish its position in 

 the genus. 



The characters by which the nectophores of the various species of Galeolaria, 

 both anterior and posterior, may be most readily distinguished are the conforma- 

 tion of the base, i. e. number and arrangement of basal wings and teeth. There 

 are also differences in the arrangement of the subu mbral canals, though in all 

 species the lateral canal on either side is connected with the ventral one by an 

 oblique transverse trunk. 



