N0.1171. HYDROIDA FROM ALASKA AND PUGET SOCXD—XUTTIXG. 749 



Each receptacle gives exit after a time to a single spherical body, which is retained 

 for a period in an external membranons sac connected by a narrow neck to the orifice 

 of the flask-shaped receptacle. 



It is scarcely possible not to recognize in these bodies an assemblage of true 

 hydmid gonangia. 



The author goes on to say that these bodies closely resemble a colony 

 of Coppinia with the hydrothec* wanting, and adds: 



Another view, however, suggests itself. May tliej-^ not represent the gonosome of 

 the hydroid with which they are associated? In lavor of this interpretation it niay 

 be nrg(!d that nothing that can be regarded as a gonosome occurs in the specimen, 

 and tbat if we look upon them as merely a parasitic hydroid we should have in 

 these bodies a gonosome without its correlative trophosome. Further, the tubular 

 base from wh'ch the gonangia spring forms a close irregular plexus which embraces 

 the fascicled stem of the supporting hydroid, and I believe I have traced a communi- 

 cation between this i)lexus and the cavities of the outiTmost tubes of the stem. 



Allnian, however, does not feel sure of this interi)retation, and leaves 

 the question to be settled by further research. 



Two years later S. F, Clarke ^ in discussing Cryptolaria longitheca 

 says: 



Centered about the upper portions of the stem of one of the finest specimens were 

 a number of jjeculiar bodies, very like in character to the similiar bodies described 

 by I'rofessor Allman as occurring on the stems of C. conferla. They are polygonal in 

 form, largest at the distal end, tapering to the base, crowded so closely together that 

 the walls of the adjoining bodiis arc in contact throughout their length, and are 

 provided with a small tubular orifice arising from the center of the distal end; at 

 the base they are connected by branching stolons, but I was unable to make out any 

 connection between these remarkable bodies and the stems of Crytpolaria upon which 

 they were growing. 



The fact of these two slightly different forms of these peculiar colonies having 

 been found npon these two closely allied forms of Cryptolaria is an argument in favor of 

 the suggestion of Professor Allman, that these bodies are the gonangia of the species 

 ot Cryptolaria to which they are attached, and that there may exist some communica- 

 tion between them as yet undiscovered. I worked with great care on sections, trans- 

 verse, longitudinal, and oblique, of cleared and stained specimens, but was unable to 

 detect any coune<tion between them. 



In 1888 Allman again refers to the matter in his Challenger report, 

 and concludes that he was mistaken in his previous surmise. He says: 



It is now evident that the structure in question is an independent growth, hav- 

 ing nothing to do with the gonosome of the hydroid on which it had taken up its 

 abode. ^ 



In 1893, in an excellent systematic discussion of the family Cam- 

 panularid*, Levinsen reopens the question with some very positive 

 testimony.^ Speaking of Coppinia arcta the author claims that Allman 

 is mistaken in describing the hydranths as often rudimentary and 

 without tentacles, Allman's figure showing that undeveloped instead 



' Report of the Hydroida collected during the Exploration of the Gulf Stream, 

 Bull. Mu8. Comp. Zool., No. 10, V, p. 244, 



3 Eeport on the Hydroida dredged by H. M. S. Challenger, 1888, Pt. 2, p. 38 (note). 



^Meduser, Cteuojihorer, og Hydroider fra Oninlands Vestkyst., Copenhagen, 1893, 

 pp. 20-23, pi. VII, figs. 2, 3. 



