Mr. J. W. Fewkes on Angelopsis. 147 
the polypites, sexual bells, and possibly tentacles. It is also 
remarkable in possessing bud-like structures on the lower part 
of the float, near its junction with the base. These bag-like 
bodies recall in general appearance the form of the float itself, 
and somewhat resemble structures to which Heckel has given 
a special name (aurophore) in certain related genera. 
My original description of this strange Siphonophore was 
necessarily a short one, and for reasons beyond my control at 
that time the figures which were given of it were somewhat 
imperfect. Since the publication of the first notice of Ange- 
lopsis I have reexamined my types and have been able to 
make a dissection of the larger of them, from which study it 
is possible for me to add something to my first description, 
which, although superficial, is accurate as far as it goes. The 
present paper has in part been called forth* by Prot. Haeckel’s 
report on the ‘Challenger’ Siphonophora, which contains 
descriptions of allied genera, the account of the anatomy of 
which throws considerable light on the interpretation of certain 
structures in Angelopsis the function of which was not wholly 
plain four years ago. 
Among the interesting Siphonophora described or figured 
in the ‘Challenger’ Report already quoted are four new 
genera which differ from other known Siphonophora in very 
important particulars. Heckel has found it necessary to 
form a new group for the reception of these genera, and assigns 
to it the name of Auronecte. In this group he includes doubt- 
fully my Angelopsis, and regards it as possibly the same as 
his genus Auralia. Although Angelopsis seems to be allied 
to Auralia, there are certam marked differences so far as 
I can make out from his meagre and unsatisfactory account 
of Auralia. Unfortunately Heckel does not describe or 
figure his genus in the report ¢ referred to, so that I am 
ignorant of some of the main characters of his Auralia. The 
genus Angelopsis is so different from other Siphonophora that 
there is a call for a more intimate knowledge of its anatomy. 
* IT have delayed my publication of the new facts embodied in this 
paper in the hope that it might be possible to collect Angelopsis alive and 
gather information in regard to its nectocalyces, tentacles, tentacular 
knobs, and other structures. 
+ The editor speaks of this work as a “ Monograph of the whole class 
of Siphonophora.” Any report which simply mentions the names of new 
genera and refers to publications yet to appear for descriptions of these 
novelties does not come up to the highest standard of what a “ Mono- 
graph ” should be. 
Heckel does not say whether his Awralia was taken by the ‘Chal- 
lenger’ or not. The locality given for it, viz. ‘depths of the Tropical 
Atlantic,” is also somewhat vague, 
10* 
