2 2. Diphyes dispar Cham. u. Eys. PI. VI, figg-. 51, 52. 



= Diphyes dispar Cham. u. Eys. 21. 



= Diphyes aiigiistata Eschsch. 29. 



= Diphyes regular is Meyen 34 a. 



= Diphyes dispar Huxl. 59. 



Stat. 135. Lat. i°34'N., Long. 126° 54' E. Cat. 167. One superior nectophorc. 



Chun (97 a) has put amongst the synonyms of Diphyopsis canipamilifera Q. et G. 27 

 (with a note of interrogation) the Biphora bipartita found by Bory de .St. Vincent 1804 and 

 described and figured by Ch.a.misso and Eysenhardt 21 under the name of Diphyes dispar. 



He says p. 27 (97a) " Ausserordentlich nahe (to Diphyopsis canipanuliferd) steht ihr die 

 "pacifische von Chamisso und Eysenhardt entdeckte Diphyes dispar. Inwieweit sie specifisch von 

 "Z?. canipamilifera verschieden ist, miissen weitere Untersuchungen lehren. Sie ist entschieden 

 "identi-sch mit Diphyes angustata Eschscholtz". 



From the descriptions of Chamisso and Eysenhardt, Eschscholtz, Meyen, Huxley, we 

 conclude that they all found the development of a special nectophore in the groups of appendages. 

 In that case Diphyes dispar should be termed Diphyopsis dispar. 



Now the Siboga expedition captured a superior nectophore of large dimension, which 

 shows the greatest conformity with the description of the authors we mentioned above. 



The total length is about two centimeters; unfortunately the upper part is damaged and 

 there is no clear sketch to be given. 



The breadth is (measured from the posterior ridge of the nectophore at its basal part 

 to the dorsal ridge) i^., cm. Evidently the specimen is relatively very broad (PI. VI, fig. 51). 



It is pyramidal and possesses 5 ridges from apex to base. All the ridges are serrated 

 near the top, these teeth disappear gradually and show themselves again near the base. Then 

 the serrating is quite developed again at the base of the ridges which form the anterior part 

 of the hydroecial cavity. 



The shape of the dorsal tooth and lateral teeth, the proximal ridge of the hydroecium 

 are quite identical with the figures in Huxley's description (59 p. 30, PI. I, figg. i, \d). 



The two proximal ridges of the hydroecium are not serrated distally; they are '/, longer 

 than the distal ones, so the lateral ridges have a curved course. Anteriorly the nectophore is 

 curved convexly, posteriorly this is even more marked ; the size of the hydroecium is therefore 

 very important, the breadth of the hydroecial cavity is f i. twice as big as the breadth of the 

 nectosac taken on the same level (6 mm. and 2 mm.). The height of the hydroecium is 9 mm. 

 (measured from the basal transverse ridges to the implantation of the stem). 



The somatocyst is very long, tube like, its course is curved, it is narrow near the stem 

 and goes some way uj) close to the wall of the nectosac. 



The nectosac is about 3 mm. broad, its course is parallel to the dorsal ridge; near the 

 ]iroximal part of the nectophore it narrows out into a thread-like appendage. The damage it 

 had undergone, prevented us from finding out how long this upper i)art is. 



The stem is well-preserved; it shows, besides the undeveloped groups, finirteen developed 



