MEDUSA. I. 21 



appear on the preserxatioii. In most of the specimens examined b}- me cirri are completely absent; 

 but in all of the well-preserved specimens a greater or smaller number of cirri are present. In no case 

 I have been able to state the nnmber of cirri. 



The Hydroid generation belongs to the genus Cuspidella. As to this point, see Browne 1907, pp.463 ff. 



This medusa, fairly large and conspicuous, widely distributed, and frequently occurring in great 

 numbers, has been known from early times, and has been described several times, usually very defici- 

 ently, unfortunately, and under many different names. It is, therefore, very difficult to give a reliable 

 list of synonyms. The confusion has been further increased thereby that several species, belonging to 

 quite other genera or families, have been included in the lists, e.g. by Haeckel (1879), as demon- 

 strated b\- Browne (1896). Among other species, ThaitinaJitias [Cosmetira] pilosella Forbes has frequently 

 been identified with '^Laodicc crjiciatd\ and is even found under that name in Be dot: Histoire des 

 Hydroides'. Browne has refound the Cosmetira pilosella of Forbes and demonstrated, that it belongs 

 to quite another group of Leptomedusse. 



If we want to state the correct name of the species, we must do away with all descriptions, 

 older than 1851; they are all so vague, that the species in question cannot be identified with any 

 probability at all. 



The generic name Laodicea has been established by Lesson (1843I for the ^'•Medusa cruciate^ 

 Forskal, called by Lesson ''Laodicea criicigcra'\ and this generic name has been commonly used since 

 that time for the genus here dealt with. The first description of a Laodicea^ sufficiently clear for 

 identification, is the description of ''Thatiitiantias undiilata'" Forbes and Goodsir 1851^ from the west- 

 coast of Scotland. When we admit that none of the forms previously described, which have later on been 

 referred to the genus Laodicea, may be identified with certainty, there can be no doubt that, according 

 to the rule of priority, the correct name of the British Laodicea must be Laodicea undulata Forbes and 

 Goodsir. The next question is, whether there is any reason, in this particular case, to abandon the 

 strict application of the rule, and, as Mayer (igio) prefers, "to retain an old and familiar name rather 

 than to reinstate an unfamiliar one such as L. undulatd\ In order to answer this question, we must 

 see, how the name of crucia/a has been used in the subsequent period. 



The name Laodicea cniciata was assigned by A. Agassi z (in L. Agassi z i860 — 62, p. 350) to 

 Forskal" s medusa, which was, in the same work, identified with Thaumantias mediterranea Gegen- 

 bauer and joined together with the new species Laodicea calcarata, L. cellularia (= Thaumantias 

 cellularia Haeckel 1879, Halistaura cellularia Bigelow 1913), and L. staitroglypha (an apocryphal species) 

 to form the genus Laodicea. The specific name cniciata has not been used at all during the subsequent 

 period until 1879, when Haeckel united several medusae from the European Atlantic coasts and the Medi- 

 terranean under the name of ''Laodice cruciata". As demonstrated by Browne (1896 p. 482) there is only 



' In "Histoire des Hydroides" 6' periode (1891 a 1900), issued 191S, Bedot has separated ''Laodicea cruciata" from 

 Cosmetira pilosella, but some of the synonyms, placed under the former, do not actually belong to that species. The "Irene 

 viridula" of Garstang 1S94 seems to be a real Eirene, with distinct stomachal peduncle and with marginal vesicles (according 

 to Garstang' s description in the quoted paper, p. 215). — "Laodice cruciata" of Haddon (iSS6c), Garstang (1894), Herd- 

 man (18940, Browne (1895, 1896 c, and 1S98 a) should be referred to Cosmetira pilosella. 



2 The paper was read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh on Jan. 20th and Febr 3rd 1851 and printed in the 

 Transact Vol. XX, which was completed in 1853. 



