THE SIPHONOPHOEA. 341 



well with Chun's (1882) description and figures of Miiggicea kochil that I have no doubt 

 that they belong to that species ; the more so since in none of them was any trace of a 

 posterior nectophore, or of a bud for such a structure, to be seen. 



As Will (1844), Busch (1851), and Chun (1882) have all observed, the nectophore is 

 pyramidal, with five prominent ridges, but with nothing more pronounced in the way of 

 basal teeth tban a slightly prominent dorsal ridge. One feature not mentioned by 

 earlier students is that the lateral ridges invariably end a short distance above the basal 

 margin. But since this fact is often masked by the incurving of the bell-margin, and 

 can be seen in contracted material only by flattening out this region, it may well have 

 been overlooked. In expanded specimens, particularly those in which the musculature 

 of the subumbrella is torn away ; the course and termination of the ridges is easily 

 followed. 



The somatocyst is cylindrical and reaches from one-third to one-half the height of the 

 nectosac. Its general form is one of the readiest field-marks to separate this species 

 from Diphyes fowleri, which resembles it in general appearance ; its shortness, too-ether 

 with the shallowness of the hydrcecium, which lies almost wholly below the level of the 

 opening of the nectosac, serve to distinguish M. Jcochii from M. atlautica (Cunningham, 

 1892). 



To Chun's account I can further add that the dorsal wall of the hydrcecium below 

 the level of the bell-opening is divided longitudinally into two nearly symmetrical wiuo-s, 

 as in many Diphyopsinse. 



In every specimen, all but the youngest appendages were wanting. M. Jcochii has 

 already been recorded from the Atlantic (Chun, 1888), as well as from the Mediterranean. 

 But there is, so far as I know, no definite record of its occurrence so far north as the 

 Bay of Biscay. 



UIPHYID^, Eschscholtz, 1829. 



Praying, Kolliker, 1853. 



Rosacea, Quoy et Gaimard, 1827. 



Rosacea plicata, Quoy et Gaimard. 



Rosacea plicata, Quoy et Gaimard, 18.27, p. 177, pi. -Ib. fig:. 4 ; K. C. Schneider, 1898, p. 78. 



Rosacea ceutensis (partim), Blainville, 1834., p. 140, pi. 6. fig. 8. 



Praija diphyes, Kolliker, 1853 a, p. 33, Tab. 9; 1853 6, p. 306 ; Vogt, 1854, p. 99, pis. 16, 17; 



Bedot, 1882, p. 122 ; non Lesson, 1843, p. 144. 

 Diphyes bruga, Vogt, 1851 6, p. 140. 



Rhizophysa filiformis, Delia Chiaje, 1842, p. 135, pi. 149. fig. 3 ; Vogt, 1851 b, p. 522. 

 Praya filiformis, Kefersteia und Elders, 1861, p. 20. 



Lilyopsis diphyes, Chun, 1885, p. 280; 1897 6, p. 102; Haeckel, 1888, p. 150. 

 ? Rosacea ciutensis, Quoy et Gaimard, 1827, p. 176, pi. 4 6. figs. 2, 3. 



This species, so fully described and well figured by Vogt (1851) and by Kolliker 

 (1853 ff), is usually known as Lilyopsis diphyes (Vogt), Chun, but, as K. C. Schneider 

 (1898) has pointed out, there is good reason to believe that it is identical with the 

 Rosacea plicata found by Quoy and Gaimard in the Straits of Gibraltar. It is true that 



