1815 
Myctophum hollan&l Jordan and Jordan appears to me to be 
so close to the present species that I find only one feature 
of possible distinction and that is in the absence of the 
superimposed photophore (really the first pair of ventral 
photophores according to Gilbert) over the first ventral 
photophore. The incomplete figure 93 of Brauer, wrongly ident¬ 
ified as Myctophum ( Myctophum) pterotum. shows the arrangement 
of these photophores for Myctophum filbulatum most distinctly. 
Of these the anterior one is absent in Jordan and Jordan's 
figure of Myctophum hollandi . though in every other respect 
the arrangement of the other photophores in almost exactly 
as in Brauer's figure. Comparing Gilbert and Cramer's figure 
2 of Diaphus chrysorhunchus (which wrongly transposed with 
their figure 3 called Myctophum fibulaturn ) it very easily be 
seen that Myctophum holland i is similarly close. Another 
feature is the statement by Jordan and Jordan "Supraventral 
(VLO) wanting" though their fugrre shows it clearly and lo¬ 
cated as in Brauer ?s figure. Further the position of the in¬ 
clined plane of the 2 anterior supraanal photophores is in 
agreement with all the figures compared. Finally the descrepan- 
cy in the description of Myctophum hollandi as already pointed 
out, may it not be that the scale containing the first or 
anterior supraanal photophore may have been lost? 
-V 
