
Fig. 7 Erenna richardi. A-D. Early stages in the development of a 
tentillum. Scale 0.5 mm. ¢ cnidoband; dc diverticular canal; gvc 
gastrovascular canal; o ‘ocellus’; p pedicle; fp terminal process. 
egg. The immature gonodendra (Fig. 5E) were more darkly pigmented 
and had a relatively long stalk which typically bifurcated close to its 
apex, with the gonophores being developed on the branches. One of 
these branches could be denuded and could be mistaken for a 
gonopalpon. Occasionally small gonophores were budded off 
approximately half way up the stalk. No gonophores were found 
with the JSL I Dive 2889. However, two specimens from the 
Discovery collections also bore only female gonodendra. 
DISTRIBUTION. Of the four specimens of Evenna richardi col- 
lected by the JSL submersibles, one came from the vicinity of the 
Dry Tortugas, between Florida and Cuba; two from The Bahamas; 
and one from c. 27°N 85°W in the Gulf of Mexico (Rebeca Gasca — 
personal communication). The species also has been found occasion- 
ally in recent Discovery collections in the North Atlantic, mainly 
south of 35°N and at depths greater than 1000 m. Much of the 
material is in too poor a condition to identify to species, although it 
seems likely that the presence of black pigment in the radial canals 
of the nectophore is specific to E. richardi. However, one large 
specimen, comprising 34 nectophores, over 400 bracts and several 
stem pieces, from Discovery St. 8599 (c. 8°40'N 23°14'W; depth 
3000-3500m), clearly is E. richardi; as is a specimen from St. 
10157#3 (31°3.6'N 13°W; 650-1000 m). In addition some damaged 
nectophores that can be referred to this species have been collected 
by four hauls fished c.300 m above the bottom in the proximity of the 
‘Rainbow’ and ‘Lucky Strike’ vents on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (c. 
P.R. PUGH 
37-38°N, 32-33°W; depth range 1793-2613 m). Better preserved 
material has also been collected recently in the vicinity of the East 
Pacific Rise (c. 12°50'N, 104°W) at depths of about 2500 m. The 
siphosome of one of these specimens bore numerous female 
gonodendra. 
Leloup (1980) listed the scant published data on the geographical 
distribution of Erenna richardi, including the conspecific E. bedoti. 
The material described by Bedot (1904), Lens and van Riemsdijk 
(1908), Bigelow (1911), Moser (1925) and Leloup (1936, 1980) 
probably can be referred to E. richardi; but this is not the case for all 
of Totton’s (1965) material. His figure 38, which is said to be a 
reconstruction, shows a nectophore with short ‘horn’ canals arising 
from the lateral radial canals on the nectosac. Re-examination of the 
single nectophore, in the NHM collections, shows that incomplete 
lateral ridges are also present and so it is referred to E. richardi. 
However, the label with it states that the Discovery station at which 
it was collected is St. 4255 not, as Totton stated, St. 2061. The 
reverse is true for the specimen figured in figure 39. Since figure 39 
looks more like a ‘reconstruction’ than figure 38, it is presumed that 
the legends to the two figures were accidentally transposed. Totton 
(1965) mentioned a larger specimen from Discovery St. 4230, but 
this was not found. His other material from La Jolla, California, 
supplied by Dr Ahlstrom, and the Beebe collections from Bermuda, 
together with some bracts from Discovery St. 4253, which he did not 
mention, probably can be referred to E. richardi, but are in poor 
condition. The Discovery St. ?2061 material, is referred to another 
species, described below. 
Of the other records not included by Leloup (1980) or published 
more recently, no description was given by Alvarino (1969, 1980) or 
Musayeva (1976) and so their true identity remains in doubt; par- 
ticularly since Alvarino (1981) described a specimen that is probably 
not E. richardi. However, as with the description of Daniel (1985), 
it is difficult to decide whether or not she was largely copying the 
description and figures of Totton (1965). The two specimens 
described or mentioned by Margulis (1969, 1977, 1990) can be 
referred to E. richardi, although in the last paper the specimen was 
described under the name E. bedoti. This will be discussed in more 
detail below. Finally, the record given by Pugh (1975) is based on E. 
richardi. 
BEHAVIOUR. The JSL II 1456 specimen was briefly observed on 
board the mother ship after collection. It was noted that the terminal 
processes of the tentilla were kept rigid and were rapidly vibrated. 
Meanwhile, the cnidoband might become bent into a U-shape. It has 
been suggested (Pugh, 1989) that vibration of the terminal process 
might be an example of aggressive mimicry of a swimming 
chaetognath. The two ‘ocelli’ might then be a representation of 
chaetognath’s gonads. Equally, the vibration of the terminal process 
might be mimicking the swimming behaviour of a larval fish; the 
two ‘ocelli’ then representing eyes. 
As Totton (1965, p.76) noted, ‘What is so characteristic of Erenna 
[richardi] is the hypertrophy of the cnidoband, which must be a very 
formidable stinging apparatus’. This has certainly proved to be the 
case, as was demonstrated when a colleague was painfully stung 
when he inadvertently came into contact with a tentacle of one of the 
specimens collected by the JSL submersible. 
REMARKS. Lens and van Riemsdijk’s (1908) description of Erenna 
bedoti was based on two fragments of stem; one being the nectosome, 
with an apical pneumatophore, and the other a small part of the 
siphosome. However, they could only compare the tentacles and 
tentilla with those described by Bedot’s (1904) for E. richardi. For 
the tentacle they stated (p. 68) that it ‘reminds one exactly of the 
tentacle described by BEDOT’; and (p. 69) that‘the most mature 
