350 MB. HENET B. BIGELOW— BISCAY AN PLANKTON : 



POLYPHYID^, Chun, 1882. 



HiPPOPODius, Quoy et Gaimard, 1827. 

 HiPPOPODius HiPPOPTJs (Forskal), Schneider. 



Gleba hippopus, Forskal, 1776, p. 14, Taf. 43. fig. E. 



Gleba excisa. Otto, 1823, p. 309, Taf. 42. fig. Za-d. 



Hippopodius luteus, Quoy et Gaimard, 1827, p. 172, pi. 4 a. figs. 1-12; Chun, 1897 6, p. 34. 



Hippopodius mediterraneus, Costa, 1836, " genere ippopodio," p. 3, Tav. 2. 



Hippopodius neapolitanus, KoUiker, 1853 a, p. 28, Taf. 6. figs. 1-5. 



Hippupodius gleba, Leuckart, 1854, p. 299, Taf. 12. figs. 1-5. 



Hippopodius hippopus, K. C. Schneider, 1898, p. 82. 



In this list only the more important references are given. For a more extended 

 hibliography, see Chun (1897 b, p. 3i). 



I am quite willing to admit that, as has often been pointed out, Forskal's two figures, 

 on which his name Gleba hippopus is based, are so lacking in detail that it is impossible 

 to reach any altogether satisfactory identification of them. But the probability that 

 they belong to the well-known form so often described as Ilip'popodius luteus is so 

 strong that I believe K. C. Schneider was justified in substituting the name hippopus 

 for luteus, as a doubtful synonym of which it is listed by Chun (1897 b). To do so will 

 no doubt add stability to the nomenclature of the genus, for until hippopus is connected 

 with some actual species it will continue to be a source of confusion. Even if hippopus 

 be not adopted, luteus, used both by Chun (1897 b) and by Lens and Van Riemsdijk 

 (1908), cannot be employed, because both these authors list as a synonym Otto's name 

 excisa, which antedates luteus. 



Occurrence : 300 to fathoms. 36 k. 6 loose nectophores. 



It is surprising that the definitive nectophores of this species so common in the 

 Mediterranean and so often recorded from the warmer parts of the Atlantic, as far 

 north as the British coast (Chun, 1897 b), should have been taken only in one haul. 

 The material, moreover, was in very poor condition. In addition to these definitive 

 nectophores, the spherical primary nectophores, so well described by Chun (1897 a), 

 were taken as follows : — 



75 to fathoms. 



100 to fathoms. 



200 to fathoms. 



300 to fathoms. 



150 to 50 fathoms. 



250 to 150 fathoms. 



They are all at the stage at which the bud for the first definitive nectophore is first 

 visible (Chun, 1897 a, fig. 6 a), and in each the stem bears a single large terminal siphon, 

 with tentacle, and one or two small buds for future siphons. In their spherical form, 

 shallow nectosac, and deep and narrow hydrcecial furrow, they agree very well with 

 Chun's figure ; but while he records 7 mm. as the greatest diameter, one of the present 

 series has attained the remarkable size of 10 mm. It is interesting to observe that this 



