150 Mr. J. W. Fcwkcs on Angelopsia. 



be separated by a muscular floor from another cavity [cav.) 

 just below the inner air-sac. On the outer walls of this thick- 

 ened layer {mm.), at the point where it joins the thin walls 

 of the outer layer of the float, there are found spherical bag- 

 like structures {gm.) of unknown function. These bodies 

 recall in appearance the larger float, from which they hang, 

 and suggest the possibility that they are buds from the outer 

 walls. Whether they are new individuals, peculiar zooids, or 

 chance swellings, I cannot determine. They are found in 

 both specimens, and so closely resemble the larger float that 

 the supposition that they are new individuals budding from 

 the thickened region of the bell seems highly probable. The 

 cavity of one of them was found filled with bodies resembling 

 those found on the lower floor. 



" The whole external surface of the thick walls of the lower 

 hemisphere of the Medusa is covered with small clusters of 

 bodies which resemble the gonophores in Velella or the sexual 

 clusters of Physalia. These clusters have a small axis, from 

 the sides of which hang, in grape-like clusters, small, spheri- 

 cal, and ovate bodies resembling tentacular knobs, fastened 

 by a delicate peduncle to an axis. The appended bodies are 

 of two sizes, large and small, and through tlie walls of the 

 latter radial structures which arise under the peduncle can be 

 seen. All are snugly approximated to the outer wall of the 

 animal, and in one instance a small fragment of what appears 

 to be an Echinoderm test (a) was flrmly grasped by them. 

 No external opening into the cavity of the muscular base on 

 which they hang was found, although carefully searched for, 

 especially at the lower pole of the Medusa. In cutting open 

 one of the small spherical bodies {gm.) which arise from the 

 side of the Medusa I found it filled with a granular mass, 

 which had some resemblance to the botryoidal clusters on the 

 lower hemisphere of the Medusa." 



As we have no printed account of the genus Auralia, it is 

 premature at present to accept Hasckel's reference * of Ange- 

 lopsis to this genus. He promises, however, a description of 

 ^i«r«/m in a work, ' Morphology of the Siphonophoraj,' yet 

 to be published, which with the present account may make it 

 possible to tell whetiier or not the two belong to the same 

 genus. If on such a comparison they are found to be the 

 same, the name Auralia by the laws of scientific nomencla- 

 ture will have to be regarded as a synonym of the older 

 designation Angelopsis. 



* Tlie author meutioued was uiiaule " with any certainty " to identify 

 his Auralia and my Angelopsis. I find tlie same dilHculty, but the cause 

 of my ditliculty is not wholly the same as his. 



