148 Mr. J. W. Fewkes on Angelopsis. 
I have been able to examine but two specimens, both of 
which are somewhat mutilated and more or less distorted in 
preservation *. 
Angelopsis globosa was taken by the ‘ Albatross’ in lat. 37° 
50! N., long. 73° 3’ 50" W., from the depth of 1395 fathoms f. 
The remaining genera of the Auronecte, to which group 
Heckel aseribes Awralia, the supposed relation of Angelopsis, 
are called by him “ deep-sea Siphonophore”’; but no genus is 
recorded from more than 650 fathoms {. It will thus be seen 
that Angelopsis may have come from considerably deeper 
water than any other Auronectid yet described. 
From the existence of the “ aurophore”’ among the Auro- 
necte Heckel regards them as preeminently deep-sea Siphono- 
phores. He considers the aurophore to beanorgan for the secre- 
tion of ‘air’ (gas) which is emptied into the cavity of the 
float. It is not wholly evident, even if the aurophore is a gas- 
secreting organ, that on this account the Auronectee are per- 
manent deep-sea Siphonophores. Moreover, additional proof 
is necessary to demonstrate that the physiological ré/e of the 
aurophore is to secrete air (gas). Upon this latter point more 
observations are needed, and it must be confessed that the 
large size of the float looks as if the Siphonophore Angelopsis 
is better fitted for life at or near the surface than at great 
depths. 
Certain “striking features” of the Auronecte, according 
to Heckel, “make it very probable that the Auronecte are 
permanent deep-sea Siphonophore, which may move up and 
down within certain limits of depth, but never come to the 
surface.”” Among the peculiarities referred to by him are 
“ the extraordinary development of the swimming-apparatus, 
? 
* Tn the figures of Angelopsis which are here published accurate out- 
lines are attempted even when there is no doubt that certain distortions 
are present which are due to the method of preservation. The system of 
“ yestoration ’”’ by which “ semidiagrammatic” figures are constructed and 
‘missing parts supplied from a knowledge of the form of the same in 
other Medusz ” does not wholly commend itself to the author. Possibly 
while figures not treated in this way are less effective, they are less liable 
to propagate erroneous ideas of the form and structure of these animals. 
+ Heckel ascribes my Angelopsis to the ‘‘ Tropical Atlantic.” What he 
exactly means by the term is not clear to me. Lat. 37° 50! is certainly 
outside of the tropics. thodalia, which came from lat. 37° 17'S., he 
ascribes to the “South Atlantic.” 
+ I have already elsewhere in these ‘Annals’ discussed the unrelia- 
bility of the data of depth at which certain Meduse are recorded. 
Auralia, according to its discoverer, came from the “ depths of the Tro- 
pical Atlantic ;” but as he does not mention the depth, the datum is not 
very reliable and does not contribute much to demonstrate that this genus 
is deep-sea in habitat. 
