﻿78 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  TEE 
  NATIONAL 
  MUSEUM. 
  vol. 
  44. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  alread}^ 
  suggested 
  (19116, 
  p. 
  265) 
  that 
  the 
  Doromasia 
  picta 
  

   of 
  Chun 
  (1888, 
  1892) 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  monophyid, 
  but 
  perhaps 
  identical 
  with 
  

   this 
  species, 
  and 
  Moser 
  (1911) 
  definitely 
  asserts 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  merely 
  the 
  

   young 
  of 
  D. 
  dispar. 
  The 
  small 
  specimens 
  listed 
  above 
  agree 
  very 
  

   well 
  with 
  Chun's 
  figure; 
  the 
  larger 
  ones 
  are 
  broader; 
  and 
  specimens 
  

   from 
  the 
  Philippines 
  show 
  that 
  there 
  is 
  an 
  increase 
  in 
  breadth 
  with 
  

   growth, 
  though 
  it 
  is 
  decidedly 
  irregular. 
  

  

  DIPHYOPSIS 
  CHAMISSONIS 
  (Huxley). 
  

   Diphyes 
  chamissonis 
  Huxley, 
  1859, 
  p. 
  36, 
  pi. 
  1, 
  fig. 
  3. 
  

  

  (For 
  synonymy, 
  see 
  Bigelow, 
  19116, 
  p. 
  347.) 
  

  

  Station 
  4896, 
  surface; 
  2 
  anterior 
  nectophores, 
  8 
  and 
  9 
  mm. 
  long. 
  

  

  Station 
  4955, 
  surface; 
  about 
  30 
  anterior 
  nectophores. 
  

  

  Station 
  5064, 
  300-0 
  fathoms; 
  1 
  anterior 
  nectophore. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  also 
  studied 
  several 
  specimens 
  from 
  the 
  Philippines. 
  

  

  The 
  species 
  recently 
  described 
  by 
  Lens 
  and 
  Van 
  Riemsdijk 
  (1908) 
  

   as 
  Diphyopsis 
  weberi 
  is 
  undoubtedly 
  the 
  D. 
  chamissonis 
  of 
  Huxley 
  

   (Bigelow, 
  191 
  1&, 
  p. 
  244). 
  

  

  None 
  of 
  the 
  present 
  examples 
  is 
  in 
  good 
  enough 
  condition 
  to 
  add 
  

   anything 
  to 
  the 
  previous 
  accounts; 
  but 
  all 
  of 
  them 
  show 
  the 
  five 
  

   ridges 
  at 
  the 
  apex, 
  deep 
  hydroecium 
  reaching 
  to 
  the 
  mid-level 
  of 
  the 
  

   nectosac, 
  short 
  somatocyst, 
  prominent 
  dorso-basal 
  and 
  latero-basal 
  

   teeth, 
  and 
  narrow 
  form 
  characteristic 
  of 
  the 
  species. 
  This 
  is 
  an 
  

   appropriate 
  place 
  to 
  point 
  out 
  that 
  by 
  some 
  error 
  in 
  composition, 
  

   overlooked 
  in 
  proof 
  reading, 
  the 
  characterization 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  in 
  ni}'^ 
  

   Key 
  to 
  the 
  Diphyopsinae 
  (19116, 
  p. 
  247) 
  reads 
  ''somatocyst 
  short, 
  

   reaching 
  only 
  to 
  the 
  opening 
  of 
  the 
  nectosac; 
  hydroecium 
  deep;" 
  

   instead 
  of 
  "somatocyst 
  short; 
  hydroecium 
  deep, 
  reaching 
  to 
  the 
  

   middle 
  of 
  the 
  nectosac." 
  As 
  printed, 
  the 
  clause 
  is 
  obviously 
  self- 
  

   contradictory. 
  

  

  DIPHYOPSIS 
  MITRA 
  (Huxley) 
  Bigelow. 
  

   Diphyes 
  mitra 
  Huxley, 
  1859, 
  p. 
  36, 
  pi. 
  1, 
  fig. 
  4. 
  

  

  (For 
  synonymy, 
  see 
  Bigelow, 
  19116, 
  p. 
  258.) 
  

   Station 
  4955, 
  surface; 
  1 
  anterior 
  nectophore. 
  

  

  Order 
  PHYSOPHORAE. 
  

   Family 
  FORSKALIIDAE 
  Haeckel, 
  1888. 
  

   Genus 
  FORSKALEA 
  Kolliker, 
  18S3. 
  

  

  FORSKALEA, 
  species 
  ? 
  

  

  Station 
  4810, 
  100-0 
  fathoms; 
  many 
  fragments. 
  

  

  The 
  material 
  consists 
  of 
  parts 
  of 
  several 
  specimens 
  so 
  contracted 
  

   and 
  fragmentary 
  that 
  nothing 
  can 
  be 
  said 
  about 
  them 
  further 
  than 
  

   that 
  they 
  belong 
  to 
  the 
  genus 
  ForsTcalea. 
  At 
  the 
  locality 
  of 
  capture, 
  

   off 
  Cape 
  Sirakimi, 
  the 
  surface 
  temperature 
  was 
  70°. 
  

  

  