55 



Of the two lateral canals the left lateral one runs normally. It begins at the base, 

 gradually leaves the hindwall, gets quite on the lateral wall and bends downwards gradually, 

 a little way beneath the point where the nectosac is narrowing. At its base before uniting with 

 the ringcanal it does not show an\- enlargement. The right lateral canal shows a very marked 

 difference. Beginning also at the base of the nectosac it goes up following the hindwall, it 

 gradually goes on pro.ximally and some distance beneath the point on the other side, where the 

 left lateral canals bend downwards, we see the development of two circles; the canal seems to 

 divide itself into two, each branch after some time meeting the other. This anastomosing of 

 canals appears again a second time immediately after the first circle. After the formation of 

 the second circle the canal goes on directly to the proximal wall and unites with the dorsal 

 canal. Another branch is sent off from the lower middle-part of the second circle and runs 

 down on the lateral sides of the wall uniting with the ring-canal. 



It seems to us that such a development of the lateral canal is only an abnormal case, 

 and that probably the new species will be struck out before long. It is one of the first anomalies 

 of mature Siphonophores which have been found up to this date, as Haeckel described only 

 abnormal larvae of SipJionopJiora (69). 



The stem and appendages were well developed; there were three distinct groups in all 

 stages of growth and a young inferior nectophore. 



34. Loose inferior nectopJiores of Diphyopsinae. PI. IX, figg. 71, 72, 73. 



Stat. 136. Ternate-anchorage. Cat. 80 O. formald. 4°/^. One superior nectophore. 

 Stat. 220. Anchorage oft" Pasir Pandjang, West-coast of Binongka. Cat. jj D. formald. 4°/ . 

 One inferior nectophore. 



Out of the immense material of loose inferior nectophores of Calycopliora which through 

 bad preservation were utterly worthless, we picked out two tiny slender specimens which through 

 their better preservation and the clear outline of their ridges were interesting enough for 

 description. We tried to find out to which superior nectophores of our Calcycophorid-coW^dxon 

 they might belong, but of course nothing definite can be said, although we rather incline to 

 find some similarit}- with Diphyopsis Weberi. Looking through the litterature of Diphyes and 

 Diphyopsis, our attention was drawn to Gegenbaur's work of 1854 and to Bedot's of 1896. 

 Bedot found near Ambon a tiny species which he called Diphyes gracilis Ggbr. 



We will not discuss the identity of the superior nectophores of Bedot's and Gegenbaur's 

 specimens, as we only have interior ones. 



In Bedot's description we find how he disagrees with Gegenbaur concerning the identity 

 of Diphyes gracilis Ggbr. 54 with Diphyes acuiiiinata Lkt. 53 and Diphyes Sieboldii Koll. which 

 he gave in a postscript in the same year. 



Bedot finds Diphyes acuminata and Diphyes Sieboldii identical and he takes Diphyes 

 gracilis apart. In the two former species, according to Leuckart's and Kolliker's de.scription, 

 there exists a true hydroecial canal in the inferior nectophore. 



This hydroecial canal is absent in Bedot's specimens and Gegenbaur, although he does 

 not speak of any open hydroecial canal, clearly figures (54 PL XVI, fig. 5) how the .stem and 



