HIPPOPODIUS HIPPOPUS. 209 



Chiaje, '42, tav. 92, fig. 7, tav. 149, fig. 1, 2; Lesson, '43, p. 473; Vogt, '54, p. 93, taf. 14, fig. 



7-12, taf. 15, fig. 1, 2; Muller '70-'71, taf. 11, fig. 8, taf. 13, fig. 1-8; Chdn, '88, p. 1165; '97b, p. 



34; Lens and Van Riemsduk, :08, p. 62, 

 Hippopus excisiis Delle Chiaje, '29, p. 64; '42, pi. 149, fig. 1, 2. 

 Stephanomia hippopoda QuoY and Gaimard, '34, p. 67, taf. 2, fig. 13-21. 

 Protomedea lutea Blainville, '30, p. 110; '34, p. 121, pi. 2, fig. 4. 

 Protomedea uniformis Blainville, '30, p. 110. 

 Protomedea calcearia Blainville, '30, p. 110. 

 Protomedea notata Blainville, '30, p. 110. 

 Hippopodius mediterranaeus Costa, '36, p. 3, taf. 2. 

 Elaphanlopes neapolitanus Lesson, '43, p. 473. 

 Hippopodius neapolitanus Kolliker, '53, p. 28, taf. 6, fig. 1-5; Weismann, '83, p. 194, taf. 20, taf. 21, 



fig. 9-13. 

 Hippopodius gleba Ledckaht, '54, p. 299, taf. 12, fig. 1-4; Keferstein and Ehlers, '61, p. 22, taf. 5, 



fig. 18-21; Haeckel, '88b, p. 178. 

 Polyphyes luteus Haeckel, '88a, p. 36. 

 Polyphyes elephantopus Haeckel, '88b, p. 364. 



Hippopodius hippopus Schneider, '98, p. 82, Richter, : 07, p. 589, taf. 28, figs. 27-34, taf. 29. 

 ? Polyphyes ungulala Haeckel, 'S8b, p. 179, ])!. 29, fig. 1-8. 

 ? Hippopodius ungulatus Chdn, '97b, p. 103. 



Station 4644 surface 4 loose nectophores. 



" 4646 300 fathoms to surface 2 " 



" 4652 400 " " " 4 specimens with 3, 1 with 5, and 



1 with 2 nectophores, and 4 



larger detached nectophores. 



4655 400 fathoms to surface 2 excellent specimens, with 4 and 5 



nectophores respectively. 

 4659 300 fathoms to surface 1 large detached nectophore. 

 " 4704 surface 2 excellent specimens, with 3 and 7 



nectophores respectively. 

 " 4734 300 fathoms to surface 3 detached nectophores. 

 The largest nectophore is 15 mm. long. 



The identification of the very well-preserved material listed as belonging 

 to the well-known Atlantic species rests upon actual comparison between it 

 and a number of good specimens from the West Indies and from the Mediter- 

 ranean. I have not been able to find a single character to separate the two; 

 this same conclusion was reached by Lens and Van Riemsdijk for the Malaysian 

 specimens collected by the "Siboga." H. hippopus has so often been described 

 and figured that no account is needed here, further than to note that while the 

 younger nectophores have the basoventral margin more sharply concave 

 and the dorsolateral prominences more tooth-like than do older ones, the 

 two dorsal prominences though somewhat variable in size, are merely small, 

 rounded knobs, in all that I have examined, both young and old. They are 

 never triangular and pointed as Haeckel has described and figured them 



