﻿80 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  NATIONAL 
  MUSEUM. 
  vol.44. 
  

  

  with 
  the 
  original 
  account. 
  The 
  pneumatophore 
  is 
  about 
  9 
  nun. 
  

   long. 
  The 
  aurophorc 
  is 
  covered 
  -svith 
  papilliform 
  appendages 
  (pi. 
  

   6, 
  fig. 
  7), 
  and 
  closely 
  resembles 
  the 
  corresponding 
  organ 
  of 
  Dromalia 
  

   (1911&, 
  pi. 
  23, 
  fig. 
  7) 
  in 
  external 
  appearance; 
  the 
  serial 
  sections 
  

   studied 
  by 
  Lens 
  and 
  Van 
  Riemsdijk 
  (1908) 
  show 
  that 
  in 
  its 
  internal 
  

   anatomy 
  it 
  differs, 
  though 
  not 
  essentially, 
  from 
  that 
  genus. 
  

  

  The 
  present 
  example 
  was 
  not 
  sectioned, 
  partly 
  because 
  it 
  was 
  not 
  

   in 
  very 
  good 
  histological 
  condition, 
  partly 
  because 
  it 
  was 
  desirable 
  

   to 
  preserve 
  it 
  intact, 
  but 
  optical 
  sections 
  of 
  the 
  appendages 
  of 
  the 
  

   aurophore, 
  cleared 
  in 
  glycerine, 
  show 
  that 
  each 
  has 
  a 
  terminal 
  pore, 
  

   as 
  in 
  Dromalia. 
  The 
  older 
  nectophorcs 
  were 
  all 
  detached, 
  and 
  there 
  

   were 
  none 
  in 
  the 
  bottle, 
  but 
  one 
  very 
  young 
  one 
  is 
  still 
  in 
  place. 
  

  

  The 
  zone 
  of 
  proliferation, 
  as 
  in 
  Dromalia 
  and 
  Angelopsis, 
  lies 
  

   directly 
  opposite 
  the 
  aurophore 
  on 
  the 
  nectosome 
  close 
  to 
  its 
  junc- 
  

   tion 
  with 
  the 
  pneumatophore 
  (pi. 
  6, 
  fig. 
  7). 
  Unfortunately, 
  this 
  

   region 
  is 
  damaged, 
  there 
  being 
  only 
  one 
  young 
  nectophore, 
  and 
  two 
  

   young 
  siphons 
  with 
  their 
  tentacles, 
  so 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  impossible 
  to 
  work 
  

   out 
  the 
  successive 
  stages 
  in 
  the 
  growth 
  of 
  the 
  various 
  appendages, 
  

   as 
  I 
  was 
  able 
  to 
  do 
  in 
  Dromalia 
  (191 
  1&). 
  On 
  the 
  opposite 
  side 
  of 
  the 
  

   nectosome, 
  just 
  below 
  the 
  aurophore, 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  naked 
  zone, 
  just 
  as 
  

   in 
  Dromalia. 
  

  

  Cormidia. 
  — 
  The 
  basal 
  surface 
  of 
  the 
  siphosome 
  is 
  covered 
  with 
  

   cormidia. 
  In 
  my 
  preliminary 
  reference 
  to 
  this 
  specimen 
  (191 
  1&, 
  

   p. 
  308) 
  I 
  said 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  apparently 
  arranged 
  in 
  a 
  spiral, 
  as 
  they 
  

   certainly 
  are 
  in 
  Dromalia. 
  But 
  a 
  more 
  careful 
  examination 
  shows 
  

   that 
  they 
  are 
  so 
  crowded, 
  owing 
  to 
  the 
  contraction 
  of 
  the 
  siphosome 
  

   as 
  a 
  whole, 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  impossible 
  to 
  make 
  sure 
  whether 
  the 
  arrange- 
  

   ment 
  is 
  fundamentally 
  spiral 
  or 
  not. 
  In 
  their 
  present 
  condition 
  they 
  

   are 
  all 
  closely 
  in 
  contact 
  with 
  one 
  another. 
  

  

  The 
  cormidia 
  themselves 
  resemble 
  those 
  of 
  Dromalia 
  (191 
  1&, 
  pi. 
  

   23, 
  fig 
  9) 
  in 
  structure. 
  The 
  appendages 
  of 
  each 
  group, 
  as 
  in 
  that 
  

   genus, 
  are 
  situated 
  on 
  a 
  stout 
  gelatinous 
  stalk, 
  considerably 
  longer 
  

   in 
  Archangelopsis 
  than 
  in 
  Dromalia, 
  which 
  is 
  traversed 
  by 
  a 
  canal 
  

   putting 
  the 
  siphons 
  and 
  gonophores 
  in 
  connection 
  with 
  the 
  general 
  

   Tascular 
  system 
  of 
  the 
  siphosome 
  (that 
  is, 
  the 
  hypocystic 
  cavity). 
  

  

  Each 
  cormidium 
  consists 
  of 
  siphon 
  with 
  its 
  tentacle, 
  and 
  usually 
  

   two 
  gonodendra 
  which 
  are 
  variously 
  branched. 
  In 
  one 
  case, 
  how- 
  

   ever, 
  there 
  are 
  four 
  separate 
  gonodendra, 
  each 
  with 
  its 
  own 
  independ- 
  

   ent 
  stalk. 
  Unfortunately 
  most 
  of 
  the 
  older 
  gonophores 
  are 
  lost, 
  

   but 
  the 
  few 
  large 
  enough 
  to 
  show 
  their 
  sex 
  are 
  all 
  males, 
  which 
  sug- 
  

   gests, 
  though 
  it 
  does 
  not 
  prove, 
  that 
  ail 
  the 
  gonophores 
  of 
  a 
  given 
  

   example 
  are 
  of 
  one 
  sex, 
  as 
  Brooks 
  and 
  Conklin 
  (1891) 
  found 
  them 
  

   in 
  the 
  specunen 
  of 
  Rhodalia 
  (?) 
  studied 
  b}^ 
  them. 
  In 
  Dromalia 
  this 
  

   point 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  determined. 
  In 
  Rhodalia 
  Haeckel 
  (1888) 
  describes 
  

   both 
  male 
  and 
  female 
  gonophores 
  for 
  a 
  single 
  specimen. 
  

  

  