Mr. J. W. Fewkes on Angciopsis. 151 



The Rliodalidai, according to Ha3ckel, have the following 

 characters : — " Trunk of the siphosorae without permanent 

 central canal and distinct primary mouth." It includes, 

 according to him, two genera, Auralia and Rhodalia. 

 Looking now at his synopsis, we find that Auralia has the 

 " trank of the siphosome tcith a large central cavity," which 

 would seem to throw it out of the family ; and if his defini- 

 tion of the family is followed it would include Rhodalia only. 

 It is certainly desirable that his diagnosis of a new family 

 should be broad enough to include the characters of the 

 genera embraced in it, and that one description should not be 

 the negative of the other. Several other instances of a similar 

 kind * might be mentioned which detract very greatly from 

 the value of the Heport on tlie ' Challenger ' Siphonophora3. 



I cannot accept Ha3ckers interpretation of the " s^jherical 

 bag-like structures " of Angelopsis given on p. 301, where he 

 says they are probably " nectophores," nectocalyces. There 

 are two reasons which lead me to doubt the validity of his 

 conclusions. First, it is very diflicult to detach them from 

 their connexion with the fioat, and, secondly, they have 

 neither bell-openings nor radial tubes so far as can be dis- 

 covered. It is also to be noted that they arise in a different 

 position from the nectocalyces on the float and nectostem. 

 When we recollect with what ease the nectocalyces ordinarily 

 separate from the " corm " in Siphonophores, and the same 

 is true in Auronecta3, the persistency with which these buds 

 cling to the " corm " is significant. Moreover in their general 

 appearance they are unlike nectocalyces. It is not impossible 

 tliat they are homologous with the organs which he calls auro- 

 phoies, but unlike them they have no external opening so far 

 as could be discovered. I have searched in vain for these 

 openings; if they exist, they are rendered invisible by the 

 contraction of the walls of the orifice. 



My remark that tliesc bodies are buds from the floats, 

 which was ventured not as a dogmatic assertion but as a 



* As will be seen, for example, on pp. 242, 243, in his account of a 

 genus of FoiskaliadiTe, Fewk., called Strohalut. lie speaks of a Stru- 

 balia, S. cupola, sp. nov., which will be described iu his ' Morphology 

 of the Siphonophorae.' One is disappointed uot to hud a description 

 of it in the ' Iteport,' and has good reason to expect a description 

 of a second species, for Hseckel mentions a species of his IStrobalia, 

 i>. couifera, as collected by the ' Challenger,' but does not describe it. 

 He does uot even promise to describe it iu his ' Morphology of the 

 Siphouophorce.' It is unfortunate that species collected by the 

 ' Ciialleuger ' should not be described in a report on them, but simply 

 mentioned by name ; and the statement made that they are similar to other 

 species, also undescribe r^ adds very little to our knov.dedge. 



