CALYCOPHORAE Leuckart, 1854. 



The classifications proposed by the two authors who have most recently 

 attempted the revision of the Calycophorae are essentially different both in 

 premise and in conclusion. Chun ('97b) has adopted the number of nectophores 

 as the most important character, and as a result, divides the order into three 

 families, Monophyidae with one, Diphyidae with two (rarely more), and Poly- 

 phyidae with several nectophores. This is essentially the system used by 

 Haeckel in his "Challenger" report. Schneider ('96, '98) on the other hand, 

 has maintained that the number of the nectophores is not an important systema- 

 tic character, but that the Calycophorae are divisible into two families, Prayi- 

 dae and Diphyidae, according as the older and the younger definitive necto- 

 phores are structurally similar or dissimilar. Schneider's explanation of the 

 well-known dissimilarity of the nectophores in Diphyids and Abylids is that 

 while the posterior bells in these groups are true nectophores, the anterior ones 

 and all the swimming bells of Hippopodius, of the Prayids, and of Sphaeronectes, 

 are combinations of nectophore and bract. The homologi es thus outlined by 

 Schneider have been criticised severely by Chun ('97b, '98a). 



According to Schneider the chief evidence that the swimming bells are 

 partly bract is the presence of the somatocyst, which according to him is never 

 found in a true nectophore; but while it is true that in some Calycophorae the 

 somatocyst is a highly specialized organ deeply embedded in the gelatinous 

 substance, I cannot find any evidence either in anatomy or development suffi- 

 ciently strong to invalidate the homology between the somatocyst and the 

 so-called " Oelbehalter " in the nectophores of Agalmids, drawn by Leuckart 

 ('53), and recently denied by Schneider ('98). The mere statement by the 

 latter author ('96, p. 581) that "Es ist nun aus mehreren Griinden unmoglich 

 den Saftbehalter mit sammt seiner Gallert umgebung als blossen Anhang des 

 Glockentheiles zu betrachen" is insufficient to prove his theory; nor has he 

 supported with sufficient facts, his view that the degenerate oldest nectophore 



