210 EXPEDITION OF THE "ALBATROSS," 1899-1900. 



Finally the part of tlie world from which the two animals come supports 

 tlie view that they are tlie same. They are both from the South Pacific. 

 Huxley's specimens were taken on the coast of New Guinea, situated fn 

 Lat. 0' to 10' S. and Long. 132" to 152' W., while the specimens under con- 

 sideration in the present paper are from Station 16 A. A. Lat. 2' 38' N., 

 Long. 137' 22'. 



There are two points only in which tlie information at hand seems to 

 indicate rather important differences between the two forms. Huxley says 

 "a verj- distinct spherical auditory sac" is attached to the ganglion, and his 

 figures indicate still more distinctly than do liis words that this structure is 

 much larger than it seems to be in our specimens. We assume, however, 

 that the difference is due to the fact that Huxley studied living animals, 

 while we have, of course, been able to examine only preserved ones and 

 rather poorly preserved ones at that. 



The other seeming difference is in the musculature of the tail. Huxley's 

 figures certainly do not indicate as wide a band of muscle on each side of 

 the notochord as is present in tlie specimens examined by us. As sliovvn in 

 fig. 1 1, tliere is almost no muscleless zone between the outer border of the 

 muscle and the margin of the tail, wliile Huxley's figures show a wide zone 

 of this kind. So far as this fact by itself is concerned, we might suppose 

 the difference to be due again to slirinkage in preservation sutt'ered by our 

 specimens. It seems, however, that the nniscle bands in our specimens are 

 broader reJalwchj to iJm notochord than is Huxley's, and it is not apparent 

 that shrinkage could account for this. However, we cannot believe that in 

 view of the many strong resemblances this one apparent diiference should 

 have much weight. 



It remains to say a few words concerning the name of our species. 



The name Appemliculana flagcllinn applied by Huxley, not only to his 

 New Guinea specimens, but also to all the Appendicularians subsequently 

 studied l)y liim, he adoptcnl from Chamisso, who lui(,l given it in 1S21 to an 

 animal taken by him " near Behring Sea." Oikopleura was proposed by 

 Mertens in 1831 for an animal discovered in the same region, and called 

 by him 0. chamissonis. Neither Chami.sso nor Mertens defined their genera 

 with nnieh accuracy, Chamisso being especially brief and general in his 



