974 REPORT OF COMMIS.SIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [48] 



In studying- tlic affinities of Angelopsis I was at first led to place it near 

 Fechjllis and to compare {mm.) the lower thickened wall to a velam 

 very rouch developed, so that the opening into the hell cavity was closed, 

 and therefore hidden. In that comparison the clusters of grape-like 

 bodies would be the sucker-like tentacles known in the Pectyllidae. To 

 this interpretation I have these objections: (1) If a bell opening exists 

 it could not be found by continued search. (2) There are several of the 

 knob-like bodies on each style, while in the sucker-armed tentacles of 

 the Pectyllidas each tentacle has a single sucker. It must be repeated, 

 however, that the observation of the fragment of shell ('/) in the grasp 

 of these bodies shows that they are grasping organs, (o) There is no 

 radial arrangement of organs, nothing to call a proboscis, and no nu- 

 merical gi^ouping in the botryoidal organs. (4.) Globular bodies like the 

 "buds" {gm.) are unknown in any of the Pectyllid?e. Turned by these 

 considerations to look elsewhere for the allies of Angelopsis I could only 

 find them among Physophores like riiysalia., but even here we meet 

 great difficulties. The upper region of the animal is evidently a float, 

 as its great cavity seems to indicate. The globular bodies (gm.) are 

 unknown among Physophores. The thickened wall {mm.) may well 

 be homologized with the portion of Physalia from which the polypites, 

 sexual clusters, and tentacles arise, while the botryoidal clusters them- 

 selves, on the surface of this structure, represent the tentacles, polypites, 

 and similar organs. Some of these are undoubtedly grasping organs, 

 as the fragment {«) mentioned above shows. I do not sui)pose that my 

 interpretation of these organs is wholly correct, but the affinities of 

 Angeloims seem to be more with Physalia and Angela than Avith any 

 known medusa'.* We are reminded, in this difficulty in distinguishing 

 whether the globular body is the bell of a medusa or the float of aPhy- 

 sophore, of a theory propounded by IMetsehnikofi", and supported on 

 other grounds, that these two structures are in reality morphologically 

 identical. 



Family VELELLID^, Eschscholtz, 1829. 



Velella mutica, Bosc. 



Velella is common in the Gulf Stream. In the Straits of Florida it is 

 very abundant, while in higher latitudes it is recorded from off Hatteras, 



*Tliat there are many very striking differeuces l)etu'een the new genus described 

 above and Angela, is api)areut. It is smaller than Angela, has not the apical " mame- 

 loune," "garni do vahndes clanstrales," nor the "tubes digestifs." There are so many 

 iucongruous stateiueutsin Ijessou's description that one suspects the whole account. 

 About th& only things whicli Angelopsis and Angela have in common is the very large 

 float, the absence of the axis, and the basal tentacles. The propriety of ray new name 

 may be (j^uestioned, and it may seem better to form a generic name of diiferent ety- 

 mology. I have, however, retained in part the name given by Lesson, since this genus 

 seems to uie to occupy the place which he supposed Angela does, and as he expresses 

 it, " fait le passage des physophores aux physales." 



