lOO 



Subordo Rhizophysauae Chun 82. 

 Fam. Rmizophysidae Brandt 35. 



Rhizophysa Per. et Les. 



So far as we can judge b\- the litterature of RhizopJiysidac we can only accept two 

 species, Rhizophysa Jiliforinis Forsk. 1775 and Rhizophysa Eysenhardti Ggbr. 60. We cannot 

 admit the validity of any of the new genera which Haeckel has proposed {Caniiophysa, Lino- 

 physa^ Aurophysa, Pnejtiiiophysa, Nectophysa)\ their characteristics are based on differences too 

 slight to permit us to look ujion them as more than two species of the same genus. 



Haeckel also often repeats that he will describe the specimens in a future work (see 

 88b I'nezimophysa p. 328). His descriptions of Aurophysa and Linophysa are quite insufficient. 

 Cannophysa and Nectophysa have been treated somewhat better, but we cannot find any difference 

 from the original Rhizophysa Eysenhardtii, looking through the description of Camiophysa 

 Murrayana, from Rhizophysa Jiiiformis or comparing it with Nectophysa Wyvillei. Haeckel 

 writes simply of the latter (88b p. 327) "Another closely allied species seems to be Rhizophysa 

 '^ Eysenhardtii described by Gegenbaur". 



F"orskAl was the first who described a Rhizophysid from the Mediterranean which he 

 called Physophora Jiiiformis. P^ron and Lesueuk 1807 foimd Rhizophysa planistotna in the 

 North Atlantic, which seems to be identical with the former. Gegenbaur 54 gives a very accurate 

 descrijjtion of a Rhizophysa and in his paper we find for the first time well-drawn figures of 

 the tentilla. He finds three types of these appendages: i) the trifid with an odd median lobe 

 and two paired lateral horns, 2) the palmate, 3) the tentilla compared by Gegenbaur to a 

 bird's head, the latter being very rare, as Gegenbaur only found them once in ten specimens 

 of Rhizophysa Jiiiformis. 



These three kinds of tentilla were found again b)- us in the Siboga material. Those 

 Rhizophysidae, which showed one of the three types mentioned above or only a stage of 

 development of one of these, belong to Rhizophysa Jiiiformis^ whilst those with only thread-like 

 tentilla were identified with Rhizophysa Eysenhardti. Finall)- one Rhizophysid (Cat. 75 A. 

 Stat. 194 — 197) where the tentilla had probably become detached was found amongst the 

 material. We indicate it as Rhizophysa spec, and it is of no particular value. 



55. Rhizophysa fili for mis Forsk. PI. XVIII, figg. 141 — 145; PI. XXI, fi^ 



= Pliyssopliora filiforniis Forsk. 1775. 



= Rhizophysa planistoina Per. et Lcs. 1S07. 



== Rhizophysa filiforniis Ggbr. 54. 



= Rhizophysa filifonnis Fewk. 79. 



= Rhizophysa gracilis Fewk. 81. 



= Rhizophysa filiforniis Hkl. 88 b. 



= Cannophysa Miirrayana Hkl. 88 b. 



= Cannophysa liysenliardtii A. G. Mayer 93. 



= Rhizophysa Murray ana Cli. 97 a. 



