I07 



Whether Fewkes found any hypocystic villi near the base of the pneumatosaccus we cannot 

 make out, as he gives no description of them. On the whole his description is far from complete. 



Bedot 93 gives a short description of a new Bathyphysa, differing slightly from Studer's 

 specimen ; he called it Bathyphysa Grimaldii. We rather incline to think Bedot's specimen 

 identical with Fewkes' Pteropliysa, although of course minor differences are there. The main 

 point however : absence of any stalk at the base of the siphons makes it clear, that the 

 Batliypliysa Grimaldii of Bedot must be changed into Pterophysa Grimaldii. In 1903 Bedot 

 gives a more extensive description of the same specimen and corrects at the same time some 

 mistakes made in 1893. 



The so called "pneumatozoids" are looked upon by Schneider 98 as undeveloped 

 polypites. Bedot tries to show (1903 and 1904) that they are structures with a very different 

 function from ordinary siphons. He finds at the base of the pneumatozoid a complicated structure 

 consisting of a muscular shield e.xternally, and a long, pigmented elastic band internally which 

 runs along the ventral side of the pneumatozoid and loses itself in its proximal part. At the 

 base of the siphon it is attached to the inner wall by the union of five entodermal bands. 

 The whole apparatus is of unknown function. Bedot, however, does not say, whether they also 

 occur in the siphons, and where the actual development of these pneumatozoids begins. 



The most important point as Bedot says (1904 p. 22) is that there is no mouth-opening 

 in the pneumatozoid. But he forgets that in all young, immature siphons the aperture does 

 not exist, as they do not yet exercise their function. In the description of a very large Ptero- 

 physa of the Siboga expedition we shall show how in the pneumatozoid-like young siphons the 

 mouth-opening does actually exist in very young stages. It seems singular indeed, that in all our 

 specimens of Pterophysa we looked in vain for the apparatus which we have mentioned above. 

 We made microscopical sections of the base of siphons in different specimens but there was 

 not the slightest indication of any such structure. 



Pterophysa Fewk. 



57. Pterophysa grandis Fewk. PI. XIX; PI. XXIV, figg. 167 — 170. 

 = Pterophysa grandis Fewk. 84. 



Stat. 52. Lat. 9° 3.45., Long. 119° 56.7 E. Depth 959 M. Deep-sea trawl. Cat. 8. formald. 



4°/^. One specimen. 

 Stat. 185. Lat. 3° 20' S., Long. I27°22'.9E. Manipa-strait from 1536 M. to surface. Cat. 94 A., 



94 B. (detached appendages of 94 A.), formald. a°I^. One specimen. 

 Stat. 284. Lat. 8°43.iS., Long. 127° 167 E. 828 M. Deep-sea trawl. Net torn. Cat. 2iA., 



21 B. (detached appendages of 21 A.), formald. 4°/^. One specimen. 



Fewkes complained that the larger specimens of P. grandis are "hopelessly twisted" 

 (84 p. 970) and it seems to us a pity that he never tried to get any clearer idea of the real 

 structure of these large ones. We too were in the same situation, but after many hours of patient 

 ■endeavour, we managed to get one specimen (Cat. 8) which can be said to be absolutely 

 •complete, and two incomplete parts (the pneumatophore was wanting) (Cat. 94 A. and 21 A.) 

 •which as the)- appear to us now, are still of much value. 



