Mr. J. W. Fewkcs on Angelopsis. 153 



somewhat larger than that of the float. This region is more 

 or less distorted by the alcohol, as shown in my figure. It is 

 crossed by radial elevations similar to the peduncles of the 

 siphosome (nectostem) of Rhodalia^ which are more or less 

 torn, especially at one extremity (distal). There is no exter- 

 nal opening into the interior of this disli, and covering its 

 surface there are clusters of sexual bodies, and here and tliere 

 pyriform organs, which are possibly polypites. The tentacles 

 are not sufficiently well preserved to determine their relation- 

 ship, and the tentacular knobs, if such exist, were not recog- 

 nized. 



The two bodies {gm^ (jmm) whicli hang from the neigh- 

 bourhood of the base of the float bear some resemblance to an 

 organ called the aurophore * by HLCckel. As neither of them 

 has external openings they do not resemble aurophores in this 

 particular. It is also an important fact that there is no 

 external opening in the external walls of the polyp-stem f. 



One of these " buds " is larger than the other, but both are 

 very much shrunken and too poorly preserved for their internal 

 structure to be definitely made out. 



The contents of these " buds " show the falsity of regarding 

 them as the same as true nectophores or nectocalyces, altiiough 

 there is nothing to prevent their being homologized with these 

 structures. From the imperfection of the material at my 

 command it was not possible for me to give an accurate 

 account of their anatomy ; but enough was seen to show that 

 they are not true swimming-bells. 



One of the most characteristic and interesting features, mor- 

 phologically speaking, of the anatomical structure of Angc- 

 topsis is the fact that the polyp-stem is thickened and its walls 

 penetrated by a network of canals, which seem to ramify in 

 all directions through it. This bulbous, thickened polyp- 

 stem is peculiar to genera belonging to the Auronectaj. 



* Ilteckel regards the auropliore as "■ adapted to the production and 

 emission of the gas contained in the hirge pueumatopliore." The reasons 

 which he gives for this conchision are not all that might be desired. One 

 reason seems to be " the great internal surface of the endodermal epithe- 

 lium, thus produced, together with the extraordinary size and glandular 

 appearance of its high cylindrical cells, viake it probable that the great 

 mass of air contained in the pneumatophore is secreted by the lacunar 

 system of tjie aurophore and conducted into the cavity of the pneumato- 

 cyst by pores which pierce the inner wall of the aurophore." One is 

 tempted to ask, Why regard the contents as air rather than some other 

 gas ? 



t The " lacunar systems " of irregular canals in the aurophore closely 

 resemble the •' gastral canals " of the cartilaginous polyp-stem. See 

 Hceckel's section of the aurophore of lihudulia (pi. v. tig. 2-ij. In the one 

 case he seems to regard these lacunfc as gas-secreting. Why not ascribe 

 the same function to the gastric canals P 



