had its place. At the dorsal side of the nectophore-like structure the jelly is thicker; this 

 gradually diminishes. At this point it is rounded; furtheron, more ventrally, it seems as if it 

 becomes ruffled twice. Quite at the ventral basal part of the Clausophyes the walls end into 

 two separated curved projections which stand out ventrally. The left point has been destroyed 

 (see ventral hg. 7). Near this point it is not possible to find the contour of the aperture, as 

 little as the ventral wall of the nectosac. 



Seen from the ventral side we find many e.xtraordinary characteristics (PI. I, fio-. 7). 



First of all it is to be noted that the hydroecial canal (as we may justly call it) is 

 absolutely open, a particularity only known for Galeolarids and then only in the inferior necto- 

 phores. A\'e do not venture to give any opinion about Clausophyes representing a superior or 

 an inferior nectophore. The walls of the hydroecial canal do not touch each other: in some 

 parts they are quite free, in others they are superposed (see ventral fig. 7, PI. I). 



Anteriorly there is situated immediately below the more rounded aperture in the excavation 

 which the two walls have formed, a tiny irregularly shaped structure which magnified 28 times 

 (PI. I, fig. 8) shows a badly preserved wall. Its contours are anteriorly very clearly desioned 

 though the wall itself has withdrawn (see fig. 8). Posteriorly the wall has remained in its place 

 but the oudines are quite as irregular. At its base we see a microscopically fine thread-like 

 canal which is only visible for a small distance and suddenly looses itself, no trace of it beino- 

 left in the gelatinous substance. As little as we can make out whether this nectophore is superior 

 or inferior, so we are unable to say whether we consider this membranous structure at the top 

 of the nectophore a true somatocyst, or part of the canal which has united superior and inferior 

 nectophore. The bad state of jjreservation is also one of the causes of our indecision. 



If this nectophore should be an inferior one it is certainly one of the very laro-est that 

 ever was found. But we wonder what the shape of the hydroecial canal of the superior must 

 have been, when we see the rounded obtuse outline of the apex of this nectophore. 



Chuniphyes nobis. 

 7. Chuniphyes imiltidentata nov. gen. nov. spec. PI. I, figg. 9 — 11 ; PI. II, fio-o-. 12 j-_ 



Stat. 141. Lat. i°o'.4S., Long. I27°25'.3 E. Cat. 44 F.I. One superior nectophore and Cat. 

 44 F.J. One inferior nectophore. formald. 4°/ . 



We first describe the superior nectophore. At the same station we found a loose inferior 

 one. There is every reason to believe that these two belong together. Still this conclusion cannot 

 be decisive as it is only the outward resemblance and not any distinct feature, such as a broken 

 canal (which would have connected the two) that was to be found either on the one or the 

 other, by which we are guided. At any rate both nectophores are each of them totally different 

 from any other SiphonopJiore described up to this date. Chuniphyes is the second of the new 

 genera which have no definite place marked in the system. 



Superior nectophore (PI. I, figg. 10, 11, 12). Length 17 mm., breadth 6 mm. The necto- 

 phore is of a pyramidal shape; the gelatinous substance is cr\-stalline, both soft and elastic. 

 The ridges stand out clearly as they are prominent and slightly differing in colour from the 



