CTENOPHORA. 



35 



consideration of snch a form as Cfeiioplni/a". WiUey claims to have proved conclnsively tliat the 

 tentacle axis of Ctrnoplana corresponds to the longitudinal axis of the flat-wonns. But Ctenoplana, 

 when creeping, has not one of the tentacles directed forwards, it creeps with one side foremost, viz. 

 after the sagittal axis. Hcteroplana moves "in a somewhat one-sided fashion, and the number of mar- 

 ginal eyes on the forwardlv directed lobe is more than twice that on the corresponding lobe on the 

 opposed side of the frontal region". Heferoplana "is almost directU' derivable from a biradial type of 

 the same grade of organisation as Ctoioplaiia. But in Ueteroplaiia the direction of locomotion (creeping) 

 has been definitely localized, and the side (nameh- the right side) to which the preference has been 

 given has for that very reason predominated over the other (left) side. In other words, in TTrteroplana 

 there is hypertrophy of the right side and atrophy of the left". 



Instead of entering on a discussion of Wil ley's profound reflections on the relations of sym- 

 metrv I will only give a reproduction of the .sketch of Hctcroplmia given by Willey (Fig. g). Is not 

 the only reasonable explanation of the figure this, that it represents a Planarian which has, in some 

 way or other, lost the left half of its body and is now about to regenerate it? The fact that 

 Willev did not find more than one specimen is certainly not against such an explanation. Herewith 

 I think we may safely leave this animal out of the discussion. 



Gastrodes parasiticitni Korotneff there is no reason to dis- 

 cuss here, its affinities to other Ctenophores being quite obscure; 

 I think it would be hard to find any special relation between it and 

 T/alpcl/a. The question about the systematic affinities of Gastrodes 

 can upon the whole scarcely be solved before its development has 

 been studied. 



Having thus critically examined tlie different forms of real or 

 supposed, aberrant Ctenophora and pointed out how far the\- show 

 structural resemblances to Tjalpclla, the question remains whether 

 perhaps a nearer relation can be shown to exist between any of the 

 groups of typical Ctenophores and Tja/pf/lti. This question must, I 

 think, be answered in the affirmative. 



Taking first the Beroids, it must be conceded that the well 

 known proliferations from their meridional canals in some way remind 

 one of the branching peripheral canals in Tjalfiella (and Cocloplaiia 

 and Ctenoplana). Further the peculiar development of the polar plates 

 of Berof^) recalls the condition found in Ctenoplana, as pointed out pij,_ ^ HeUroplana Newtoni Willey. 



bv Willev (Ctenoplana p. 332). However, the presence of tentacles (From Willey. Op. cit) e. eyes; l_i. 

 • V 1 i' 00 ' I ,.lj.fj rudimentarj' mtestinal diverti- 



in Tjalfiella shows beyond doubt that it has no real relations to the cula"; o. position of mouth on ventral 

 „ ., . . ,, , . , , , . , . , surface; r.i. right intestinal diverticula. 



Beroids; it is needless then to point out the other characters m which 



they differ from each other. The resemblance in the branching canals of the gastrovascular system are 



merely a superficial analogy, as is also the resemblance between the polar plates of Ctenoplana and Bero'e. 



■) Perhaps not found in all Beroids; it remains uncertain whether the species of the genus Pandora have the polar 

 plates thus developed - in any case P.mitrata Moser appears to have simple polar plates. Moser, Japanische Ctenophoren. 

 .\bh. Bayr, Akad d. Wiss. I. Suppl. 4. 1908. p. 35. (Eeitr. z. Naturgesch. Ostasiens, herausg. v. Doflein). _^ 



