340 " ME. HENEr B. BIGELOW— BISCAY AN PLANKTON : 



One of the gonophores is already of comparatively large size, and has a well-marked 

 hydroecial groove, limited by broad wings, but open as yet throughout its length. 

 Except for these wings, the surface of the gonophore shows neither ridges nor distinct 

 facets, nor are there any basal teeth. But the absence of such structures at this early 

 stage does not necessarily imply that they are not developed later. 



The spadix is extremely small — indeed, it is nothing more than a minute knob 

 projecting downward into the bell cavity ; at this early stage its sex could not be 

 determined. 



In addition to this gonophore there are two younger ones in the single cormidium 

 preserved ; both are very young, but one has a well-developed manubrium on which 

 ova, already of considerable size, can be distinguished. In this cormidium there is no 

 special nectophore ; but it can only be settled on more extensive material whether such 

 organs are developed later or not. 



The siphon, which is relatively large and has a weU-marked basigaster, presents no 

 feature of special interest. 



The basal part alone of the tentacle is still intact, and the numerous tentiUse which 

 are attached to it are all immature. So far as their present state shows, they are of the 

 type characteristic of SphcBronectes and other monophyids. 



Assuming that Nectopyramis is a monophyid, it does not fit in very well with either 

 of the two subdivisions of that group usually recognized, for although, so far as the 

 form of the nectophore is concerned, it agrees well enough with the Sphseronectinae, it 

 differs from that subfamily, and from the Cymbonectinse as well, in the structure of the 

 somatocyst. In this respect the only close parallel among Calycophorse is afforded by 

 certain Diphyidse, e. g. Stephanoplnjes, Chun. But the absence of any trace of a 

 posterior nectophore forbids classing it in that family. To make further speculation as 

 to its affinities of any real value, large series must be examined, to determine especially 

 whether more than one nectophore is ever present. 



Cymbonectinje, Haeckel, 1888. 



MuGGi^A, Busch, 1851. 

 MuGGi^A KOCHii (Will), Chun. 



Diphyes kochii. Will, 1844, p. 77, Taf. 2. fig. 22 ; Busch, 1851, p. 46, Taf. 4. figs. 3-5. 

 Muggima pyramidalis, Busch, 1851, p. 48, Taf. 4. fig. 6. 

 Muggima kochii, Chun, 1882, p. 679, Taf. 16. figs. 1-7; 1892, p. 89; K. C. Schneider, 1898, p. 88. 



Eor a complete synonymy of this species and its eudoxid, the Erscea pyramidalis of 

 Will, see Chun, 1892, p. 89. 



Occurrences: 50 to fathoms. 25 ^r. 10 anterior nectophores. 



100 to fathoms. 30^, 35 6, 36 5, 36 e. 11 

 150 to fathoms. 36/ 3 



200 to fathoms. 2,Qg. 4 „ „ 



250 to fathoms. 36 h. 2 „ 



All about 12 mm. long. 



These nectophores, none of which are in very good condition, agree, on the whole, so 



