420 bulletin: museum of comparative zoology. 



DiPHYOPSiNAE Haeckel. 



{Sensu Bigelow, 1911b). 



This subfamily is abundantly represented in the collection, as of 

 course was to be expected. But the series adds v^ery little to our 

 knowledge of the group, consisting chiefly of superior nectophores of a 

 few well-known species. No eudoxids were found in the material 

 submitted to me. The two genera, Diphyes and Diphyopsis, are 

 retained here, although united by Moser (1912a), because the distinc- 

 tion between the two, presence or absence of special sterile necto- 

 phores in the free eudoxid, obviously deserves more importance in 

 classification than the minor differences separating the several species 

 in the two groups. 



Diphyes appendiculata Eschscholtz. 



Diphyes appendiculata Eschscholtz, 1829, p. 138, pi. 12, fig. 7. 

 Diphyes sieboldii Kolliker, 1853, p. 36, taf. 11, fig. 1-8. 

 ^Diphyes appendiculata Huxley, 1859, p. 34, pi. 1, fig. 2. 



(For synonymy of the polygastric generation, see Bigelow, 1911b, p. 248) 



This common Diphyes was taken at Stations 10,161, 10,162, 10,163, 

 10,166, 10,169, 10,171, 10,172, 10,173, 10,176, 10,178, 10,180, 10,182, 

 10,184, 10,186, 10,187, 10,188, 10,194, 10,195, 10,196, 10,197, 10,200, 

 10,203, 10,207, 10,208, 10,209, 10,211, 10,212 both in surface, and in 

 intermediate hauls at various depths. The material consists of several 

 hundred superior nectophores, a few inferior nectophores and one 

 complete specimen. 



Moser (1911, 1913a) maintains that the D. sieboldii of Kolliker 

 (1853) and Gegenbaur (1854) is not the D. appendiculata of Esch- 

 scholtz, with which Huxley (1859), and I (1911a, 1911b, 1913,) have 

 united it. That the wide-spread species which I have recorded 

 under the latter name from the North Atlantic (1911a), the West 

 Indies (1911b), the Eastern Tropical and Northwestern Pacific 

 (1911b, 1913), and which is listed above, from the collections of the 

 Bache, is identical with D. sieboldii, there is no doubt: the question at 

 issue is only whether my identification of it as the still older D. ap- 

 pendiculata of Eschscholtz (1829) is correct. Owing to the insufficiency 

 of the original account, this must always remain more or less a matter 

 of opinion: no more so, however, in this case than in that of most of 



