154 Mr, J. W. Fewkes on Angelopsis. 
The interior is hollow, forming a cavity which is destitute 
of an external orifice. his cavity is divided into regions and 
is lined by a more or less cartilaginous * plate. Auralia 
alone of the Auronecte resembles Angelopsis in the absence 
of an external orifice to this cavity. 
Directly below the air-float the cavity of the polyp-stem 
forms a thin disk-shaped recess, the upper walls of which are 
formed by the float, the lower by lamellar folds of the carti- 
laginous plate which lines the cavity of the polyp-stem. A 
large orifice or communication leads from this vestibule into 
the main cavity (cav. 6.) of the polyp-stem. There is no 
opening from the cavity of the float into the vestibule (cav.) of 
the cavity of the polyp-stem. 
Cormidia.—The clusters of sexual bodies (p) and polypites 
dot the whole underside and skirt the margin of the external 
surface of the polyp-stem of Angelopsis. ‘They are in a very 
poor state of preservation, so that I am unable to recognize 
with certainty their different parts. I have supposed that 
each cluster consists of a central axis, with clusters of male 
and female sexual bells arising from its external walls. 
Some of these are much larger than the others, and those are 
interpreted as polypites; but of this interpretation I have 
some doubt. ‘Tentacles were not observed, and if they once 
existed have been ruptured from their connexion with the 
cormidia. Heckel finds tentacles and tentacular knobs or 
hike structures in several genera which he regards as closely 
related to Angelopsis ; but I have not been able to find them 
in this genus. A small fragment of the shell} (test) of a 
sea-urchin was found clinging to the underside of the polyp- 
stem, and I have supposed that it was held there by the ten- 
tacles ; but the only structures observed were those which 
looked like immature tentacular knobs. 
After calling attention to the possibility that Angelopsis is 
the same as another genus (Awralia), Heckel speaks of the 
“inaccuracy” of my description and the “ superficiality” 
of my examination of Angelopsts. 
So far as inaccuracy goes this criticism is believed to be 
unjust, although the poor character of my material rendered 
it difficult to make out many details of structure. My descrip- 
* The use of the word cartilaginous here and elsewhere refers rather 
to the tough nature of this plate than to its histological characters, It 
recalls closely the “shell” of Veleila in its general characters and differs 
very strikingly from the soft gelatinows body of most Meduse. 
t In the original figure of Angelopsis this little fragment was repre- 
sented; but when my second drawing was made this foreign body had 
dropped off and was found in the bottom of the bottle containing the 
type. 
