28 first Annual Beport 
kidneys lie. The general shape of the abdominal cavity may be seen 
from that of the viscera (Figure 3), which conforms to it in outline. 
As may also be seen, the shape quite closely resembles that of Rhino- 
batus productus, in spite of the extreme difference in external form 
of these two species. It is interesting to note that in the batfish, 
having a breadth one and seven-tenths times its length, the abdom- 
inal cavity is even narrower and longer than in the ‘‘shovel nose’’ 
with a breadth of only one-third the length. Evidently the shape of 
the abdominal cavity is not determined by the external form in these 
species, but rather is coincident with the depressed body and similar 
habits of the two. 
The alimentary canal, liver, spleen and pancreas will be seen to 
closely resemble those of R. productus except that the liver is bilo- 
bate and somewhat larger. In Figure 4 the spleen is shown attached 
to the pyloric tract of the stomach, but in reality it lies between and 
against the two divisions, as it does also in R. productus. The spiral 
valve in this species has twenty-two turns (just double the number 
of R. productus), each being quite narrow, as shown in the figure. 
The pyloris is much farther in advance of the spiral valve than in 
the latter species, also. 
The urogenital organs are best shown in the figure (Figure 4). 
The testes in this specimen are united throughout the posterior half 
of their length, attaching at the common end to the rectal gland. 
Whether or not this is the normal condition of the species was not 
determined, as only one specimen was dissected. Dorsal of the 
middle of the testes extend the kidneys and Wolffian ducts, the 
former mainly developed posteriorly, as shown, the latter extending 
forward to the esophageal region, where they unite with the vasa 
efferentia from the testes. Posteriorly the Wolffian ducts (vesicule 
seminalis) and the sperm sacs open into the cloaca by a single pore, 
the urogenital sinus, which is well beyond the anal opening of the 
alimentary canal. Other relationships may be seen from the figure. 
In the stomach of this specimen was found a considerable amount 
of meat, but so chewed up as to prevent identification, except that 
the remains of several polychaet worms were recognizable. No 
chitinous or bony remains were found, and apparently this specimen 
had eaten no crustacean or vertebrate food. 
Family CHIMAERIDAE 
Chimaera colliei Lay and Bennett. Chimaera, Ratfish. 
One specimen brought in by fishermen at Newport; presumably 
from deep water. 
