Organism of the Siphonophora. 197 
the distinction of two subfamilies as Cannophyside and 
Linophyside upon differences which perhaps justify generic 
separation. ‘The same thing applies to the splitting of the 
genera of Agalmide so far as in their foundation the form of 
the tentilla is exclusively taken into account (Agalmopsis— 
Lychnagalma ; Halistemma—Cupulita ; Anthemodes—Cuneo- 
laria ; Agalma—Phyllophysa; Stephanomia— Crystallodes). 
Further, it seems to me quite unjustifiable to establish a 
special order of Siphonophora for the remarkable deep-sea 
genera Stephalia (Stephonalia), Auralia, and Rhodalia, as 
these forms possess the pneumatophore of the Physophoride 
(Physonectze) and have only acquired the character peculiar 
to them and by which they take their place as a special group 
of Physophoride by the union of the proximal section of the 
phneumatophore with an air-discharging apparatus (auro- 
phore). That the peculiar apparatus designated an aurophore 
has been produced by the transformation of a nectocalyx is 
not only not proved, but is even very improbable, as we can- 
not very well see how a nectocalyx could have got upon the 
dorsal line of the stem, which is always destitute of buds. 
Even if this remarkable pneumoduct should be superinduced, 
in analogy with the toundation of the nectocalyx, by a bud- 
like elevation of the two cell-layers of the stem with subse- 
quent growth of the entoderm and invagination of the sur- 
rounding entoderm, this would by no means prove that it was 
actually produced by transformation of a nectocalyx, but it 
would be much more justly interpreted as a special differen- 
tiation of the wall of the stem at the air-funnel of the pneuma- 
tophore in connexion with the necessity of the escape of air. 
However, even in the first case there would be no reason for 
the establishment of a special order. 
Another much heavier criticism relates to the classification 
of the Calycophoride (Calyconecte), under which the 
EKudoxide and Erszeide with their genera and species figure 
as distinct families side by side with the Monophyide and 
Diphyide. It is, in fact, a fundamental offence against the 
idea of a natural system constructed upon a phylogenetic 
foundation to separate the sexual generations which have 
become independent from the generations which produce 
them and to treat them as distinct species of distinct genera 
and families, to be arranged and enumerated as equivalent to 
the corresponding categories of the nursing generations. No 
fewer than 25 species, 8 genera, and 2 families in consequence 
occur twice over and under two denominations. In point of 
fact such a duplication of equivalent categories would con- 
