DIPHYES. 33 



It is clear from this description that Bory de St. Vincent regarded the proximal 

 nectocalyx as the posterior, the distal as the anterior, which is not their relation in 

 swimming. In his figure a, the ccenosarc is represented as issuing from the nectosac 

 of the distal nectocalyx, and the minuter details of structure are not given. Nevertheless, 

 its identity with the species under description is unmistakeable. It was taken about midway 

 between Tristan da Cunha and the Cape of Good Hope. 



Cuvier (as has been stated above) gave the generic name of Diphi/es to this species 

 in the ' Regno Animal' (1817), but conferred no specific denomination upon it. 



Chamisso and Eysenhardt (De Animalibus quibusdam, 'Nova Acta, x, 1821, p. 365) 

 describe and figure a D. dispar, which they justly consider to be the same as Bory's 

 species, and which is certainly identical with mine. They took it in the equinoctial 

 Pacific. 



In the ('Zoology of Freycinet's Voyage,' 1849), Quoy and Gaimard say (under the head 

 of "Diph3'es Bory") — "Only a single species of this genus is known: it was discovered by 

 M. Bory de St. Vincent, who has figured it under the name of Biphore hiparti. It is the same 

 as that which we reproduce here, and which we dedicate to this naturalist. After him, 

 MM. Tilesius and Chamisso have also given figures of it" (p. 577). I am inclined to judge 

 from the figure (tab. Ixxxvi, fig. 2), which, however, is not so good as that of Bory or that 

 of Chamisso and Eysenhardt, that the "Diphyes Bory" is really the same as Bory's species. 

 At any rate, Quoy and Gaimard admit that it is so, and therefore one does not see how they 

 were justified in suppressing the name D. dispar, given by Chamisso and Eysenhardt three 

 years before, and creating a new one. 



The French voyagers and naturalists give the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, the coasts of 

 New Holland and of Timor, as the geographical range of their Biphyes. 



Curiously enough, Quoy and Gaimard confer no specific name at all on the Biphyes 

 which they figure and describe in the 'Annales des Sciences,' 1827, and leave one in doubt 

 whether they consider it identical with that previously described by Bory de St. Vincent and 

 themselves or not. 



Eschscholz (1829), not recognising its identity with Chamisso and Eysenhardt's B. dispar, 

 and with Quoy and Gaimard's B. Boryi, with both of which he was acquainted only by 

 figures and descriptions, calls it B. campamlifera; while he establishes a new species 

 {B. angustata) upon a form which he observed himself. I can find in his figures and 

 descriptions, however, nothing to justify the separation of angustata from disjmr, campanulifera, 

 or Boryi. 



Lesson did good service in his ' Centurie Zoologique' (1830), by rehabilitating the name 

 Biphyes dispar, and by reproducing side by side with his own drawing the various figures of 

 this Biphyes already given, so as to show the identity of the forms described by Bory, 

 Chamisso, and Quoy and Gaimard. He took the species frequently in the Indian Ocean 

 and about the Moluccas. 



In the 'Zoology of the Voyage of the Astrolabe' (t. iv, 1833, p. 83) Quoy and Gaimard, 

 still ignoring the name given by Chamisso and Eysenhardt altogether, and not even referring 

 to these able naturalists, describe and figure anew the Biphyes Boryi. In its general outline 

 the new figure perfectly resembles that given by Lesson and otliers, but while in all the 

 preceding figures, in which the hydroecium and the nectosac of the proximal nectocalyx 



