416 BULLETIN- : MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 



specific differences, consisting chiefly of the number and arrangement 

 of basal wings and teeth, are particularly clear cut in this genus. And 

 though the value of these characters has only recently been appreciated, 

 it has usually been possible to connect the actual specimens at hand 

 with the older accounts and figures. 



Three species, G. quadrivakis (Blainville), G. au^tralis Quoy and 

 Gaimard, and G. monoica Chun have recently been redescribed in 

 detail (Lens and Van Riemsdijk, 1908, Bigelow, 1911b). Briefly stated 

 their diagnostic features are as follows: — 



In G. qiiadrivalvis the superior nectophore has two dorsobasal teeth 

 and two ventrobasal wings, the inferior has four basal*teeth (two dorsal, 

 tw^o lateral) and two basoventral wings ; and it is further characterized 

 by peculiar constrictions of the inferior nectophore. Galcolaria aiis- 

 tralis has no basal teeth; but the superior nectophore has two, the 

 inferior a single, ventrobasal wing. In G. monoica the superior necto- 

 phore has one dorsobasal tooth; two laterobasal teeth; two lateral 

 flaps next the latter, and two large ventrobasal wings ; while the soma- 

 tocyst is very small. Its inferior nectophore has three dorsal teeth, 

 incised at the tip; two lateral triangular angles, and a single large 

 ventrobasal wang. 



Aside from G. chuni Lens and Van Riemsdijk (1908), which, 

 according to my \-iew is probably G. australis, though it is retained 

 by Moser (1913a, p. 148) as a distinct species, all Galeolarias described 

 within recent years can be referred to one, or other, of these three 

 species. But the present collection contains a representative of the 

 genus which, while it resembles G. quadrivahis in its inferior necto- 

 phore, differs from all three in the presence of four basal teeth, in 

 the superior nectophore. 



This species so closely resembles G. quadrivalvis in its general 

 appearance, that it is probable that the two have been confused; 

 indeed the M. C. Z. collection contains two excellent specimens 

 of the "quadridentate" form, received from the Zoological station 

 at Naples as G. quadrivalvis. For the stability of the nomenclature 

 of the genus it is, of course, desirable to establish to which of 

 these species, with bidentate or with quadridentate superior necto- 

 phore, the name G. quadrivalvis really belongs. But here, as so often, 

 we are faced by the difficulty that the original account of G. quadri- 

 valvis (Blainville, 1834), being taken from the inferior nectophore, 

 applies equally well to either. However, it certainly belongs to one or 

 the other of them. And inasmuch as the quadridentate form is proba- 

 bly the G. quadridcnlata of Quoy and Gaimard (1834), which was 



