GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 389 



Note: — Dr. F. Moser's preliminary discussion of the Monophyids and 

 Diphyids of the German South Polar expedition (Uber Monophyiden und 

 Diphyiden. Zool. Anz., 1911, 38, p. 430-432) was received when the foregoing 

 pages were in press, too late for extended review. While awaiting her final 

 account I may note some of the more important systematic results. She unites 

 as one species Diphyes bojani, D. gegenbauri, D. malayana, D. indica, and Doro- 

 masia pictoides (cf. p. 244); and having Atlantic material she was able to prove 

 that they are identical with D. steenstrupi Gegenbaur, a result suggested above. 



She asserts definitely that Doromasia picta Chun is not a Monophyid, but 

 is a young stage of Diphyopsis dispar, thus bearing out my suggestion arrived 

 at from less extensive material. 



In only one important point her observations contradict my own, namely 

 in connecting the Eudoxid Ceratocymba in genetic series with Diphyabyla. 

 The "Albatross" collection, on the contrary, affords strong evidence that the 

 former is a stage in the life history of Abyla leuckartii. I had hoped that the 

 next important collection would determine the parentage of Ersaea bojani. 

 But Moser finds only a strong probability that it belongs to Diphyes steenstrupi 

 (= bojani). Finally she mentions the discovery of new, and highly organized 

 Monophyids. Among them we may perhaps look for members of the Necto- 

 pyramidinae. 



