47 



Stat. 144. Anchorage North of Salomakiee-(Damar-)island. Cat. 122 C. formald 4°/ . 18 specimens 

 Stat. 146. Lat. 0°36S., Long. I28°32'.7 E. Cat. 64 H. formald. 47^. 2 specim°ens. 

 Stat. 149. Fau-anchorage and lagune. West-coast of Gebe-island. Cat. 66 A. ale. 90°/^. 3 specimens. 

 Stat. 168. Anchorage North of Sabuda-island. Cat. 97 B. formald. 4%. 2 specimens. 

 Stat. 172. Gisser; anchorage between this island and Ceram-Laut. Cat. 42 A. formald. 4°/. 

 14 specimens. ° 



Stat. 184. Anchorage off Kampong Kelang, South-coast of Manipa-island. Cat. 142 I. ale. 90°/ 



One specimen. " 



Stat. 186. Lat. 3°io'.5S., Long. 127° 20.5 E. North-side of Manipa-strait. C^A 25 V.F. formald. 



47o- 16 specimens. 

 Stat. 189'. Lat. 2°22'S., Long. 126° 46' E. Cat. 65 D.F. formald. 47o- 5 specimens and Cat. 



127 F.G. ale. 9o7o- 2 specimens. 

 Stat. 194. Lat. i°53'.5S., Long. 126° 39' E. Cat. 23 A.A. formald. 47^. One specimen. 

 Stat. 220. Anchorage off Pasir Pandjang, West-coast of Binongka. Cat. 77 A. formald. 4°/ . 



One specimen. ° 



Stat. 229. Lat. 4°23S., Long. I2S°45'.5 E. Cat. 82 B. formald. 47„. 6 specimens. 



Of this new species 1 10 superior nectophores were captured. I)i/>/ijes (Diphyopsis) subtiloides 

 is closely allied to DipJiyes stibtilis Chun 86. In 1885 Chun described a superior nectophore of 

 a Diphyid-\\Vft shape and another nectophore, whose characteristics were the absence of anv 

 somatocyst and the position of the small stem and appendages in the top of the nectocalyx. 

 He judges the former to be the primary nectophore of the Monophyid MonopJiyes irregularis, 

 the latter the primary nectophore of the Monophyid Sphaeronectes gracilis. He had come to this 

 conclusion by the shape and disposition of the groups of appendages on the stem. These are, 

 he tells us, absolutely identical in the above-mentioned nectophores to those in the Monophyids, 

 Monophyes irregttlaris and Sphaerotiectes gracilis. He tells us how in Mojiophyids there are 

 besides the groups, consisting of buds for future siphon, tentacle, bract and gonophore yet other 

 groups consisting only of future bract and gonophore. This, he says, is quite characteristic for 

 Monophyids. In Diphyids such undeveloped groups are never to be found. 



In 1886 he corrects his work of 1S85. He finds that the .so-called primary nectophores 

 of Monophyids are the superior and inferior nectophores of a new Diphyid, Diphyes stibtilis, 

 of which after a long search he found a complete specimen. 



What about the development of the incomplete groups between the complete ones? 

 About this important matter he tells us nothing at all although he hnds specimens with twentv- 

 four groups of appendages. 



We had the opportunity of studying Diphyes subtilis in Naples, where during the months of 

 January and February 1906, loose superior and inferior, and often complete specimens occurred 

 every day in the plankton. But we unfortunately never found any well-developed appendao-es. 

 They were all exceedingly tiny specimens, very fragile and we suppose that the least disturbance 

 on or near the nectophores occasions the falling off of the inferior nectophores and of the stem. 

 In fact we found many times loose inferior nectophores with the very tiny stem and appendao-es 

 clasped yet between the wing-like ridges, in the superior part such as Chux sketched (85 fig. 5). 

 But as to a further investigation into the disposition of the appendages of the stem, we had 

 to give that up as we had no occasion to remain longer in Naples. 



It has been of much use to us to have been able to examine live Diphyes subtilis Ch. 



