348 ME. HENET B. BIGELOW — BISCATAN PLANKTON : 



resembles it in the absence of " wings " and in general appearance, it is separated 

 by the structure of the somatocyst, which, in the latter, is of the ordinary fusiform type 

 and of considerable length. The only species with which it might be confused is Diphyes 

 suMiloides, Lens and Van Riemsdijk ; but, as noted above, it is easily distinguished from 

 that form by its peculiar somatocyst. 



Chuniphyes, Lens and Van E-iemsdijk, 1908. 



CnrNiPHYES MULTiDENTATA, Lcns and Van E.iemsdijk. 



Chuniphyes multidentata, Lens and Van Riemsdijk, 1908, p. 13, pi. 1. figs. 9-11, pi. 2. figs. 12-15, 

 This very interesting species is represented by 7 anterior and 8 posterior nectophores. 

 The records of its occurrence are : 



250 to fathoms. 36 h. 1 anterior and 1 posterior nectophore. 



300 to fathoms. 36 k. 1 anterior nectophore. 



1250 to fathoms. 27 a. 1 anterior and 1 posterior nectophore. 



1500 to 750 fathoms. 30 a. 1 anterior and 2 posterior nectophores. 

 1250 to 1000 fathoms. 27 b. 1 posterior nectophore. 

 2000 to 1000 fathoms. 30 e. 3 anterior and 3 posterior nectophores. 

 The 'Siboga' specimens (1 anterior and 1 posterior nectophore) from which Chuniphyes 

 was originally described were so much distorted as to make its general structure seem 

 more unusual than it actually is. In point of fact, it differs in no essential feature from 

 other Diphyids, although the unusual number and arrangement of the ridges and the 

 peculiar form of the hydrcEcium and somatocyst justify the retention of Chuniphyes as a 

 distinct genus. The pyramidal shape of the nectophores and the form of the hydrcecium 

 strongly suggest that its affinities are with the Diphyopsinse rather than the Galeolarinse. 

 Unfortunately, however, neither the ' Siboga,' the ' Albatross,' nor the present specimeas 

 afford any information as to the structure of the groups of appendages, and until we 

 know whether they are set free as eudoxids, or remain permanently attached to the 

 stem, it is impossible to settle this point definitely. 



Comparison, side by side, between the Biscayan and the ' Albatross ' Eastern- Pacific 

 specimens of Chuniphyes fails to show any differences sufficient to separate them into 

 two distinct species. And inasmuch as both these series agree with Lens and Van 

 Riemsdijk's description of the ' Siboga ' material, so far as the poor condition of the latter 

 allows one to judge, all must be referred to the one species, C. multidentata. This form 

 is described and figured in detail in my report on the ' Albatross ' Siphonophores, but to 

 make its identification easy, the more diagnostic characters may be repeated here. 



The anterior nectophore of C. rmUtidentata may be distinguished at first glance by its 

 pyramidal form, by its prominent ridges, and by the peculiar form of its obliquely 

 truncate base. At the sharp-pointed apex there are four ridges : 1 dorsal, 1 ventral, and 

 a lateral on each side. A short distance below the apex the dorsal and the two laterals 

 each branch dichotomously, so that there are seven at the base. 



The facets are a triangular dorsal, enclosed by the two branches of the dorsal 

 ridge, and on either side three laterals ; the dorso-lateral and the median-lateral being 



