148 Mr. J. W. Fewkes on Angelopsis. 



I have been able to examine but two specimens, both of 

 which are somewhat mutilated and more or less distorted in 

 preservation *. 



Ancjelopsis glohosa was taken by the ' Albatross ' in lat. 37° 

 50' N., long. 73° 3' 50" W., from the depth of 1395 fathoms f. 

 The remaining genera of the Auronectse, to which group 

 IIa3ckel ascribes Auralta, the supposed relation of Angelopsis, 

 arc called by him " deep-sea Siphonophorce" ; but no genus is 

 recorded from more than 650 fathoms J. It will thus be seen 

 that Angelopsis may have come from considerably deeper 

 water than any other Auronectid yet described. 



From the existence of the " aurophore " among the Auro- 

 nectje Hffickel regards them as preeminently deep-sea Siphono- 

 phores. He considers the aurophore to be an organ for the secre- 

 tion of " air " (gas) which is emptied into the cavity of the 

 float. It is not wholly evident, even if the aurophore is a gas- 

 secreting organ, that on this account the Auronectte are per- 

 manent deep-sea Siphonophores. Moreover, additional proof 

 is necessary to demonstrate that the physiological role of the 

 aurophore is to secrete air (gas). Upon this latter point more 

 observations are needed, and it must be confessed that tlie 

 large size of the float looks as if the Siphonophore Angelopsis ' 

 is better fitted for life at or near the surface than at great 

 depths. 



Certain " striking features " of the Auronectse, according 

 to Ha3ckel, " make it very probable that the Auronectae are 

 permanent deep-sea Siphonophorre, which may move up and 

 down within certain limits of depth, but never come to the 

 surface."" Among the peculiarities referred to by him are 

 " the extraordinary development of the swimming-apparatus, 



* In the figures of Angelopsis which are here published accurate out- 

 lines are attempted even when there is no doubt that certain distortions 

 are present which are due to the method of preservation. The system of 

 " restoration " by which " semidiagrammatic " figures are constructed and 

 " missing parts supplied from a knowledge of the form of the same in 

 other Medusae " does not wholly commend itself to the author. Possibly 

 while figures not treated in this way are less effective, they are less liable 

 to propagate erroneous ideas of the form and structure of these animals. 



t HfBckel ascribes my Angelopsis to the " Tropical Atlantic." What he 

 exactly means by the term is not clear to me. Lat. 37^ 50' is certainly 

 outside of the tropics. Rhodalia, which came from lat. 37° 17' S., he 

 ascribes to the " South Atlantic." 



X I have aheady elsewhere in these ' Annals ' discussed the unrelia- 

 bility of the data of depth at which certain Medusfe are recorded. 

 Auralia, according to its discoverer, came from the " depths of the Tro- 

 pical Atlantic ; " but as he does not mention the depth, the datum is not 

 very reliable and does not contribute much to demonstrate that this genus 

 is deep-sea in habitat. 



