ON CTENOPIIORES OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF MISAKI. 457 



be somewhat longer, and the pharyngeal folds are distinctly shorter 

 than in the latter ; and moreover, the yellowish hue of lappet margin is 

 peculiar to the former. These facts, coupled with distinctness in their 

 geographical distribution, may suffice to specially distinguish the two 

 forms. ESCHSCHOLTZ (1829, P- 3°> %■ 2 ) nas recorded a form 



which he referred to the genus Eucharis from the North Pacific, east 

 of Japan. But his description as well as the accompanying figure are 

 too imperfect to form any clear idea of that form. Some recent authors 

 (among whom is MOSER, 1908, p. 47) have expressed the view that 

 the ctenophore is nearer to Lcsiienria rather than to Eucharis. This 

 view is not unwarranted, since the ctenophore in question was repre- 

 sented by him to be without lappets though provided with well-deve- 

 loped auricles. And yet there seem to be sufficient grounds left for 

 the assumption that ESCHSCHOLTZ may have been quite right in 

 referring his form to Eucharis. The colour of the body, the papillae 

 on the surface, and also the dimensional proportions of the body, 

 apparently stand in favour of this assumption. Moreover, his description 

 of the auricules as " vier vierkanntige zolllange Fortsätze, die sehr 

 schmal sind, in ihrer ganzen Länge eine gleiche Dicke behalten, und 

 an ihren Kanten mit Reihen von Schwimmfäden besetzt sind," conforms 

 precisely to the condition of the same organ in Eucharis, but .not to 

 that in Lesiteuria. Furthermore, the lappets in Eucharis are, as CHUN 

 (1880, p. 297) has remarked, body parts which present a high degree 

 of variation as regards development. Thus, an individual (1. 53 mm.) 

 came under my examination in which the lappets were merely repre- 

 sented by a pair of inconspicuous processes. Also it should not be 

 forgotten that the lappets are extremely liable to damages and are 

 easily torn off unless handled with great care. It is therefore not 

 altogether impossible that ESCHSCHOLTZ had before him really an 

 Eucharis but with the lappets either torn off or not normally developed. 

 As to the question whether or not Eschscholtz's E. tiedevtanni is 

 specificially identical with the form under treatment, no positive answer 



