Mr. J. W. Fewkes on Angelopsis. 151 
The Rhodalide, according to Heckel, have the following 
characters :—‘ Trunk of the siphosome without permanent 
central canal and distinct primary mouth.” It includes, 
according to him, twe genera, Auralia and Rhodalia. 
Looking now at his synopsis, we find that Auralia has the 
“trunk of the siphosome with a large central cavity,” which 
would seem to threw it out of the family ; and if his defini- 
tion of the family is followed it would include Rhodalia only. 
it is certainly desirable that his diagnosis of a new family 
should be broad enough to include the characters of the 
genera embraced in it, and that one description should not be 
the negative of the other. Several other instances of a similar 
kind * might be mentioned which detract very greatly from 
the value of the Report on the ‘ Challenger’ Siphonophore. 
T cannot accept Heckel’s interpretation of the ‘ spherical 
bag-like structures ” of Angelopsis given on p. 301, where he 
says they are probably “ nectophores,” nectocalyces. There 
are two reasons which lead me to doubt the validity of his 
conclusions. First, it is very difficult to detach them from 
their connexion with the float, and, secondly, they have 
neither bell-openings nor radial tubes so far as can be dis- 
covered. It is also to be noted that they arise in a different 
position from the nectocalyces on the float and nectostem. 
When we recollect with what ease the nectocalyces ordinarily 
separate from the ‘corm’ in Siphonophores, and the same 
is true in Auronecte, the persistency with which these buds 
cling to the “corm” is significant. Moreover in their general 
appearance they are unlike nectocalyces. It is not impossible 
that they are homologous with the organs which he calls auro- 
phoies, but unlike them they have no eaternal opening so far 
as could be discovered. I have searched in vain for these 
openings ; if they exist, they are rendered invisible by the 
contraction of the walls of the orifice. 
My remark that these bodies are buds from the floats, 
which was ventured not as a dogmatic assertion but as a 
* As will be seen, for example, en pp. 242, 243, in his account of a 
genus of Forskaliadee, Fewk., called Strobalia. He speaks of a Stro- 
balia, S. cupola, sp. nov., which will be described in his ‘ Morphology 
of the Siphonophore.’ One is disappointed not to find a description 
of it in the ‘ Report,’ and has good reason to expect a description 
of a second species, for Heckel mentions a species of his Strobalia, 
S. conifera, as collected by the ‘ Challenger,’ but does not describe it. 
He does not even promise to describe it in his ‘ Morphology of the 
Siphonophore.’ It is unfortunate that species collected by the 
‘Challenger’ should not be described in a report on them, but simply 
mentioned by name; and the statement made that they are similar to other 
species, also undescribed, adds very little to our knowledge. 
