101 
probable, it is true, some very definite characters being assigned 
to his O. adhærens, viz. large, conspicuous mouthshields, the pre- 
sence of six granules, in two series, above the second tubefoot 
and of a hook inside the two tentacle scales, from about the middle 
of the arm; finally the tentacle scales are stated to begin only at 
the fourth pair of tubefeet. Having had one of Studer’s cotypes 
from the Berlin Museum for examination, I must State that — in 
this specimen, at least (and it corresponds very well with the fig¬ 
ures given by Studer, so that there would not seem to be any 
reason for thinking that it might be a different species confounded 
with the true adhærens) — there are no grains at the second tube¬ 
foot, no hook inside the tentacle scales in any part of the arm, 
and the tentacle scales begin at the third pair of tubefeet (not 
counting the oral tubefeet). (In Studer’s figure ll.b. they are 
even represented as beginning at the second pair!). Finally, the 
mouth shields are not at all large and conspicuous, on the contra- 
ry, quite small and inconspicuous, situated in the very outermost 
corner between the large adoral shields. What has been taken by 
Studer to be the oral shields are, in faet, the adoral shields 
(Comp. his fig. ll.b., PI. IV). The only noteworthy difference which 
I find to exist between this specimen and the young specimen of 
O. constrictum from off the North of New Zealand (see below), 
which is of nearly the same size, is the somewhat greater length 
of the bursal slits in O. adhærens. The very distinetly jointed ap- 
pearance of the arms and the prominence of the radial shields in 
O. adhærens would appear to be due to the specimen having been 
half dry. In any case, O. adhærens and O. constrictum must be very 
nearly related; whether they are really different species or ident- 
ical, is a question which can only be settled on a close study of 
a mueh larger material than at present available. 
The young specimen figured in PI. IV, figs. 4—5, is the one 
which Bell (Op. cit.) identified as Ophiomyxa brevirima (evidently 
only because it agrees with the name in its short genital slits; 
the resemblance to an Ophiomyxa would be hard to find). It agrees, 
upon the whole, so well with Ophiocreas constrictum that I hardly 
have any doubt of its being a young specimen of this species. (It 
measures 8 mm diameter of disk, ca. 100 mm length of arms). 
Only the colour is different, light-brown, while O. constrictum is 
