150 Mr. J. W. Fewkes on Angelopsis. 
be separated by a muscular floor from another cavity (cav.) 
just below the inner air-sac. On the outer walls of this thick- 
ened layer (sm.), at the point where it joins the thin walls 
of the outer layer of the float, there are found spherical bag- 
like structures (gm.) of unknown function. ‘hese bodies 
recall in appearance the larger float, from which they hang, 
and suggest the possibility that they are buds from the outer 
walls. Whether they are new individuals, peculiar zoéids, or 
chance swellings, I cannot determine. They are found in 
both specimens, and so closely resemble the larger float that 
the supposition that they are new individuals budding from 
the thickened region of the bell seems highly probable. The 
cavity of one of them was found filled with bodies resembling 
those found on the lower floor. 
“The whole external surface of the thick walls of the lower 
hemisphere of the Medusa is covered with small clusters of 
bodies which resemble the gonophores in Veled/a or the sexual 
clusters of Physalia. These clusters have a small axis, from 
the sides of which hang, in grape-like clusters, small, spheri- 
cal, and ovate bodies resembling tentacular knobs, fastened 
by a delicate peduncle to an axis. The appended bodies are 
of two sizes, large and small, and through the walls of the 
latter radial structures which arise under the peduncle can be 
seen. All are snugly approximated to the outer wall of the 
animal, and in one instance a small fragment of what appears 
to be an Echinoderm test (a) was firmly grasped by them. 
No external opening into the cavity of the muscular base on 
which they hang was found, although carefully searched for, 
especially at the lower pole of the Medusa. In cutting open 
one of the small spherical bodies (gm.) which arise from the 
side of the Medusa I found it filled with a granular mass, 
which had some resemblance to the botryoidal clusters on the 
lower hemisphere of the Medusa.” 
As we have no printed account of the genus Auralia, it is 
premature at present to accept Heeckel’s reference * of Ange- 
lopsis to this genus. He promises, however, a description of 
Auralia in a work, ‘ Morphology of the Siphonophore,’ yet 
to be published, which with the present account may make it 
possible to tell whether or not the two belong to the same 
genus. If on such a comparison they are found to be the 
same, the name Awralia by the laws of scientific nomencla- 
ture will have to be regarded as a synonym of the older 
designation Angelopsis. 
* The author mentioned was unable ‘‘ with any certainty ” to identify 
his Awralia and my Angelopsis. I find the same difficulty, but the cause 
of my difficulty is not wholly the same as his. 
