56 



appendages come out directly from the proximal part of the inferior nectophore. This implies 

 in our opinion the absence of any hydroecial canal in the necto])hore and it makes the identity 

 with Diphyes Sieboldii Koll. and Diphyes aauninata Lkt. more or less improbable. In Bedot's 

 Diphyes gracilis there is no hytlroecial canal as the hydroecial canal "est remplace jjar une 

 "gouttiere formee par les aretes du nectophore qui, en un point determine prennent un develop- 

 "pement considerable et donnent naissance a deux lobes se recouvrant I'un I'autre" (96 p. 371). 



He speaks of two lobes and on Plate XII, figure 8 he sketches only one, but as his 

 figure is not very clearly given, it may be that this is a mistake. 



Our two loose nectophores show also the development of only one lobe, the continuation 

 of the right wall on the ventral side. This lobe quite covers up the ventral part of the necto- 

 phore, on the other side the left wall stands out markedly but a development of a lobe does 

 not appear. We should be willing to identify our two inferior nectophores with Bedot's Diphyes 

 gracilis if in the text he had not distinctly said that there are two lobes. A small tooth-like 

 projection is also to be found on the more distal ]>art of the two hindridges. Gegenbaur figures 

 these "Zackenfortsatze", Bedot does not mention them. 



But as in Gegenbaur's Diphyes gracilis the ventral ridges are of the same length, we 

 see that in our specimens the teeth of the anterior ridges are different. The left is nearly one 

 half longer and projected into a beautifully serrated point. In Bedot's specimen there exists a 

 slight difference in length. Our specimens measure 3'/, mm. in length, so do Bedot's, whilst 

 Gegenbaur's specimens measure 8 — 9 mm. 



Subfam. Galeolarinae Ch. 97^. 



The subfamily of the Galeolarinae was very interesting as certain species, which had 

 only been found in the northern seas are also represented in the Siboga-material. Unfortunately 

 Galeolaria is very delicate and does not stand preservation so well as other Calycophora, where 

 the gelatinous substance is more developed and the nectophores have a more facetted appearance. 

 This fails entirely in Galeolarinae, they are exceedingly delicate. Galeolaria qnadrivalvis is 

 ])erhaps the most substantial of all. The nectosacs which of course in life u.sed to be rounded, 

 are quite flattened by preservation and wherever we found several specimens in one bottle they 

 were so squeezed and altered as to be utterly unrecognizable. So we have been obliged to take 

 no further notice of a great many loose superior and inferior nectophores. It was perfectly 

 useless trying to find out to which species these shapeless things could belong. The species 

 Galeolaria qnadrivalvis Les. was easil\- to be distinguished from the others; firstly through the 

 shape of the nectosac in the inferior nectophore, secondly through the course of the canals in 

 the nectosac in both superior and inferior nectophore, and thirclK- through the shape of the 

 somatocyst and the appearance of the two lobes near the velum in the superior nectophore. 



For the rest of the material we consulted Sars 46, who writes about two new species 

 Diphyes biloba and Diphyes truncata, Gegenbaur, who describes 54 Diphyes tnrgida and 60 



