91 



the Ajironectae which he simultaneously intended for publication (the latter being perhaps not 

 made by him but by Mr. Giltsch) the mistake was inaugurated. When then he began to write 

 the text (after the completion of these sketches) he could not of course fail to draw wrong 

 conclusions whenever the sketches were in any way deficient. The mistake concerns the position 

 of the zone of proliferation (the German "Knospungszone") the area in which the very first 

 buds of appendages are developed themselves. 



"~~^^e are strenghtened in this opinion by the fact that we have had the opportunity 

 of personally examining some specimens of Rliodalia iniranda described by Haeckel in his 

 Challenger Report and now deposited in the British Museum. They were still well-preserved 

 enough and are stained a bright red colour. 



According to Haeckel's statement and to the figure given on PI. IV, fig. i6 of his 

 work 88b we have to look for this zone of proliferation on the opposite (viz. ventral median) 

 side of the aurop/iorc, the position of which according to Haeckel is on the dorsal median line. 



We looked in vain for young buds, or indications on the outer wall which would have 

 given us the slightest idea that an)- young buds are ever developed there. And looking over 

 carefull)- the other drawings made by Haeckel of Rhodalia miranda, we were struck b)- finding 

 on Plate I, fig. i (the corm seen from the apical side), many rows of nectophores and actually 

 on both sides of the anrophore smaller, younger nectophores. So it would seem to us that 

 nectophores developed on the same side as the aurop/iorc and it would seem strange that the 

 other appendages, those of the siphosome, would have to develop on the exactly opposite side. 

 This same contradiction in Haeckel's statement was also found by Schneider (98 p. 155) but 

 its great importance has only become clear to us, since we have studied Archangelopsis with 

 the utmost care. Our own material seems namely to clear away all difficulties in regard to the 

 exact significance of the so-called aurophore and gives at the same time an exact idea of the 

 development of the appendages in this family of Ajigelidac. 



Whilst describing our specimens we shall have at the same time the occasion to clear 

 away Chun's doubts as to the analogy of the aurophore with the distal part or pneumatosaccus 

 of Physonecia. We shall also compare our material with Haeckel's Challenger Report and 

 Schneider's Histologische Mitteilungen of 189S and hope that our final conclusions may prove 

 satisfactory to everybody. 



Archangelopsis nobis. 

 54. Archangelopsis typica nov. spec. PI. XVII; PI. XVIII, figg. 137 — 140. 



Stat. 15. Lat. 7°2'.6S., Long. 1 15° 23'.6E. Depth 100 M. C^A loA., 10 B. ale. 90°/^. 2 specimens. 

 Stat. 289. Lat. 9° 0.3 S., Long. I26°24'.5 E. Depth 112 M. Cat. 22. formald. 4%. One specimen. 



This new genus Archangelopsis bears a general resemblance to Fewkes' Angelopsis 

 globosa but differs from it and from Rhodalia Haeck. by the fact that the siphosome instead of 

 being of a spongy structure such as it is in Haeckel's specimens (88b PI. IV, fig. 15) or partly 

 filled by a gelatinous (?) substance as in Fewkes' (PI. VII, fig. 2) specimens contains one vast 

 cavity with which the appendages are in communication (see our PI. XVII, fig. 124). 



