BROWNE— SOME JELLY-FISHES FROM OKHAMANDAL IN KATTIAWAR 153 



Solmundella bitentaculata, Browne, 1905, Medusae, in " Report on the Pearl 

 Oyster Fislieries of the Gulf of Manaar (Ceylon)," Part IV., p. 153, 

 PI. 4, figs. 1-6. 

 Solmundella bitentaculata, Mayer, 1910. " Medusae of the World," p. 455. 



There are twenty-two specimens from ofE the coast of Okhamandal. They were 

 collected during December, 1905, and January, 1906. They are all in rather bad con- 

 dition and very dirty. In general appearance they resemble the specimens described 

 by me froni Ceylon. The umbrella is highly arched, with rather a keel-like summit. 

 The largest specimen measured 7 mm. in width and 6 mm. in height, and its tentacles 

 about 30 mm. in length. There are no traces of peronial grooves in the perradii without 

 tentacles. Owing to the condition of the specimens it was impossible to recognise 

 sense-organs. 



SIPHONOPHORA. 



Diphyopsis chamissonis (Huxley). 



Diphyes chamissonis, Huxley, 1859. " The Oceanic Hydrozoa," p. 36, 



PL 1, fig. 3. 

 Diphyopsis weberi. Lens and van Riemsdijk, 1908. " Siphonophora of 



the Siboga Expedition," p. 53, PL 8, figs. 67-68. 

 Diphyes chamissonis, Browne, 1904. " Fauna and Geography of the 



Maldive and Laccadive Archipelagoes," Vol. 2, p. 742, PL 54, fig. 6. 

 Diphyes chamissonis, Browne, 1905. " Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf 



of Manaar," p. 155. 

 Diphyopsis chamissonis, Bigelow, 1911^ Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard 



College, Vol. 38, p. 347. 



This species was common along the coast of Okhamandal during December, 1905. 

 The plankton was sent to me without any sorting out of the specimens, and I failed to 

 find the posterior nectophore of any Diphyid in it, so that the posterior nectophore of 

 this species still remains unknown. 



Among the plankton were a number of Eudoxids which looked very much Hke 

 the eudoxid of Diphyopsis dispar. The. complete absence of any trace of the poly- 

 gastric generation of Diphyopsis dispar in the plankton led me to suspect that these 

 eudoxids had a connection with Diphyopsis chamissonis, whose eudoxid was unknown. 

 On comparing the specimens with the eudoxids of Diphyopsis dispar from the Indian 

 Ocean I was able to detect minute differences, sufficient, however, to isolate them. 

 The description of the eudoxid of Diphyopsis chamissonis will be given in my forth- 

 coming Report on the Siphonophora of the " SeaUrh " collection. 



Diphyopsis chamissonis is widely distributed in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. 



