28 THE OCEANIC HYDROZOA. 



SECT. IV.— THE GENERA AND SPECIES OF THE CALYCOPHORID^. 



The generic term Biphyes was proposed by Cuvier to designate the singular animal 

 originally described by Bory de St. Vincent under the name of " Biphore biparti." Cuvier 

 imagined that the nectocalyces — the two most obvious organs of the Bijjhyes — were distinct 

 animals, temporarily united, and possibly in copulation. It was not until 1827 that Quoy 

 and Gaimard established the family of "Diphides," ox Biphydm, to include this genus, together 

 with their Calpe, Abyla, Nacella, Cuboides, and Enneagonum. 



Two years later, Eschscholz formed the group of Siplionopliora, to include these and 

 other "Acalephae," with the definition, " No central digestive cavity, but separate suckers. 

 Swimming organs either special cavities or vesicles filled with air, or both combined." 

 The assemblage is very natural, though its definition requires some rectification. Its author 

 divides it into three families: " 1. The Biphyida, having a soft body coalescent at one end 

 with a cartilaginous part, and possessing a second swimming organ with a swimming cavity. 



2. The PhysophoridcE, having a soft body provided at one end with a vesicle filled with air. 



3. The Velellidce, whose body contains a cartilaginous or calcareous shell, in whose many 

 cells air is contained." 



Eschscholz's family of BipJiyidce contains the genera Eudoxia (including the Pyramis of 

 Otto), Erscea, Aylaisma, Abyla (including Calpe, Abyla, and Rosacea of Quoy and Gaimard), 

 Cymba (including Enneagonum. and Cuboides, Q. and G.), and Biphyes. Hippopodius is 

 arranged with the Pliysophorida. 



Quoy and Gaimard subsequently added the genera Cucubalus and Cucullus; and De 

 Blainville, Amphiroa, Praia, Galeolaria {Sulculeolaria) , and Tetragonum. Unfortunately, the 

 author of the 'Actinologie' winds up the list with Noctiluca! and BoliolumH 



Kolliker made a substantial addition to our knowledge of this group by his account of 

 the structure and determination of the affinities of Hippopodius, and by his description of a 

 new genus, Fogfia ; while his researches, conjoined with those of Vogt, Leuckart, and 

 Gegenbaur, added largely to our acquaintance with the general organization of the order ; — 

 and finally Leuckart, in his excellent general account of what has been done of late years 

 towards the elucidation of the relations of these animals, proposed the term CalycopUoridm 

 instead of Biphyda, which is inapplicable to such genera as Hippopodius and Vogtia. 



These Calycophoridcs he divides into two families: 1. Biphyida, including Abyla, 

 Biphyes, Galeolaria, and Praya. 2. Hippopodiid<s, containing Hippopodius and Vogtia. 



The " monogastric" Calycophorida, such as Eudoxia and Erscea, which were' erected by 

 Lesson into a distinct group, are considered to be only derivative forms. 



I agree with Leuckart in adopting the ordinal name Calycophorida , instead of Biphyda: ; 

 and with Sars, Vogt, and Leuckart in regarding the monogastric genera<as derivative forms, 

 properly classed under the genera whose zooids they are. 



Nevertheless, in the present imperfect state of our knowledge, it will be more convenient 



