Mr. J. W. Fewkes on Angelopsis. 153 
somewhat larger than that of the float. This region is more 
or less distorted by the alcohol, as shown in my figure. It is 
crossed by radial elevations similar to the peduncles of the 
siphosome (nectostem) of Fhodalia, which are more or less 
torn, especially at one extremity (distal). There is no exter- 
nal opening into the interior of this dish, and covering its 
surface there are clusters of sexual bodies, and here and there 
pyriform organs, which are possibly polypites. The tentacles 
are not sufficiently well preserved to determine their relation- 
ship, and the tentacular knobs, if such exist, were not recog- 
nized. 
The two bodies (gm, gmm) which hang from the neigh- 
bourhood of the base of the float bear some resemblance to an 
organ called the aurophore* by Heckel. As neither of them 
has external openings they do not resemble aurophores in this 
particular. It is also an important fact that there is no 
external opening in the external walls of the polyp-stem fF. 
One of these “‘ buds” is larger than the other, but both are 
very much shrunken and too poorly preserved for their internal 
structure to be definitely made out. 
The contents of these ‘* buds” show the falsity of regarding 
them as the same as true nectophores or nectocalyces, although 
there is nothing to prevent their being homologized with these 
structures. From the imperfection of the material at my 
command it was not possible for me to give an accurate 
account of their anatomy ; but enough was seen to show that 
they are not true swimming-bells, 
One of the most characteristic and interesting features, mor- 
phologically speaking, of the anatomical structure of Ange- 
lopsisis the fact that the polyp-stem is thickened and its walls 
penetrated by a network of canals, which seem to ramity in 
all directions through it. This bulbous, thickened polyp- 
stem is peculiar to genera belonging to the Auronecte. 
* Heeckel regards the aurophore as “adapted to the production and 
emission of the gas contained in the large pneumatophore.” The reasons 
which he gives for this conclusion are not all that might bedesired. One 
reason seems to be “ the great internal surface of the endodermal epithe- 
lium, thus produced, together with the extraordinary size and glandular 
appearance of its high cylindrical cells, make it probable that the great 
mass of air contained in the pneumatophore is secreted by the lacunar 
system of the aurophore and conducted into the cavity of the pneumato- 
cyst by pores which pierce the inner wall of the aurophore.” One is 
tempted to ask, Why regard the contents as air rather than some other 
gas? 
+ The “lacunar systems” of irregular canals in the aurophore closely 
resemble the “gastral canals” of the cartilaginous polyp-stem. See 
Heckel’s section of the aurophore of ?hodalia (pl. v. fig. 24). In the one 
case he seems to regard these lacunee as gas-secreting. Why not ascribe 
the same fwiction to the gastric canals ? 
