the system. We describe them between the Monophyidae and Diphyidae although we do not 

 mean to attach any value to this provisiory position. They must be regarded as quite different 

 from both families. Nor is there any mutual relation between the three species, which we are 

 going to describe separately. 



Still they had to be placed somewhere but it should be borne in mind that the position 

 here assigned to them is absolutely provisional. 



Ceratocymba Ch. 



5. Cci'atocyniba asyinmetrica nov. spec. PI. I, figg. 2 — 5. 



= Ceratocymba sagittata Bedot 1904. 



Stat. 106. Anchorage of Kapul-island, Sulu-archipelago. Cat. 91 Q. formald. 4°/^. One specimen. 



Stat. 148. Lat. o°i7'.6S., Long. 129° 14'. 5 E. Cat. 59 B. ale. 90°/^. One specimen. 



Stat. 203. Lat. 3°32'.5S., Long. i24°i5'.5E. Cat. 126 B. ale. 90°/o. 3 specimens. 



Stat. 2I5\ West looo M. distant from North point of Kabia-island reef. Cat. 128 F. ale. 90°/^,. 



One specimen. 

 Stat. 220. Anchorage oft" Pasir Pandjang, West coast of Binongka. Cat. -JJ C. formald. 4°/^. 



One specimen. 



This new species of the very doubtful genus Ceratocymba is represented by three complete 

 specimens and five loose bracts. 



It differs from the Ceratocymba •&, hitherto described (by OuoY and Gaimard 27, Chun 

 88, 97 a, Bedot 1904, etc.) by the absolute asj-mmetrical structure of the bract. 



We had much difficulty in giving any name to this species, as Ouoy and Gaimard's 

 description of Cyinba sagittata (27) and Chun's (88) of Ceratocymba spectabilis (which a few 

 years later (97 a) he calls Ceratocymba sagittata again, as he felt pretty sure about the identity 

 of Ouoy and Gaimard's material and his own) are very far from being sufficiently clear. Still 

 Ouoy and Gaimard's, and Chun's text denote so many differences from our specimens, that 

 we were really puzzled to find any resemblance with Ceratocymba at all. (The name Cymba had 

 been abolished by Chun as it had been used for a Mollusk before Ouoy and Gaimard's time). 



It was at the same time impossible to reconstruct this Ceratocymba only by the two 

 texts and it is a great pity, that Chun gave no sketches at all, although this type had not 

 been found again since Ouoy and Gaimard's time. 



To help us out of this difficulty. Prof. Chun was kind enough to send us a splendid 

 complete specimen of Ceratocymba sagittata. At the same time he took the trouble to write 

 to us: "Ich mochte nur bemerken, dass die Deckstlicke ziemlich variabel sind; bald sind die 

 "hornartigen Fortsatze lang, bald kurz und dadurch erscheint das DeckstUck bei einigen Formen 

 "breit, bei anderen schmaler". Comparing his specimen and his text of 88 with our own 

 specimens, there is too much conformit)' with Ceratocymba not to use the same generic name, 

 but the asymmetrical shape, the shape of the phyllocyst and its comparative smallness, force 

 us to use a new^ specific denomination, for which we chose "asymmetrica". 



Bedot 1904 has published a figure of a Ceratocymba caught in the Atlantic which is 

 to our opinion absolutely identical ^vith our Ceratocymba. He supposes it to be the Ceratocymba 



SIBOGA-EXrEDITIE IX. ■ 2 



