234 GALEOLARIA. 



well figured. As is shown both in side and basal views of the anterior necto- 

 phore, there are two basoventral wings, but no basal teeth, either lateral or dorsal. 

 This conformation of the base agrees perfectly with the Malaysian species de- 

 scribed by Lens and Van Riemsdijk (:08) as G. biloba Sars, as well as with a 

 considerable series in the present collection. Since australis can now be identi- 

 fied with actual specimens, it must be chosen as the type of the genus. The 

 question whether Sars's Norwegian biloba is actually identical with the Malay- 

 sian form, as Lens and Van Riemsdijk suppose, is important from the standpoint 

 of distribution. It is certainly true that Sars's ('46) figures afford no basis for 

 separating the two. Unfortunately, however, they are not sufficiently diagnos- 

 tic, and no recent author has studied the North Atlantic form for the purpose of 

 testing its specific characters. Until this is done, the onlj' course to follow is to 

 consider biloba as a doubtful synonym of australis. 



In the Atlantic, G. biloba is so far known certainly from northern regions 

 only, doubtfully from the Mediterranean. In the Indo-Pacific region, on the 

 contrary, australis is a common surface form in regions of very high tempera- 

 tures. At present it is impossible to say whether the two are identical, having 

 been overlooked in the warmer parts of the Atlantic, or whether they are dis- 

 tinct, but closely allied species, one peculiar to cold, the other to warm waters. 

 But they are so closely related that the former is probably correct ; biloba is 

 therefore listed as a doubtful synonym of australis. 



Lens and Van Riemsdijk (:08), who have attempted a much needed revision 

 of the genus, recognize four well-founded species in addition to biloba, viz. 

 G. truncata Sars, '46 {= G. inflata Chun), G. monoica Chun, G. quadrivalvis 

 Blainville, G. chuni Lens and Van Riemsdijk, and two problematical forms, 

 Diphyes turgida Gegenbaur and Diphyes ovata Kefferstein und Ehlers ('61). 



Diphyes ovata, if the description be correct, is a very remarkable Diphyid. 

 But as it has never been observed since 1861, its existence is problematical. At 

 any rate it is idle to speculate on its affinities until it is reexamined. 



Diphyes turgida, according to the original account (Gegenbaur, '54), has 

 no somatocyst. But such a peculiarity would be so remarkable among Calyco- 

 phorae, that probably this structure was overlooked, as Lens and Van Riemsdijk 

 suggest (:08, p. 57) or the species was founded on abnormal material. In 

 all other respects, i. e., sculpture of the base of the nectophore, general form, 

 and outline of the bracts, turgida resembles biloba, with which Schneider has 

 united it and the same course is followed provisionally here. G. chuni Lens 

 and Van Riemsdijk, known from three superior nectophores only, is closely 



