22 MEDUSA. I. 



one single name among Haeck el's 25 synon\ms, which really refers to s. Laodicea, viz. Thaiiiiiantias 

 medtierr^inea Gegenhauer. Before Ha eckel, accordingly, the specific name criiciaia was very far from 

 being commonly used or "familiar", and Haeckel's list of synonyms made tlie confusion as complete 

 as ever. Indeed, I am not able to find a better way out of the mess, than to release altogether the 

 name of crnciata and follow the rule of priority, using the name by which the species has first been 

 described in a manner which allows a recognition, viz. luidulata Forbes and Goodsir. This was proposed 

 by Browne in 1907, and the proposal was adopted by Vanhoffen in 1911 (p- 365). 



Then we come to the question of the mutual relation between the different species of the 

 (ienus Laodicca. 



Since new examinations of the medusae belonging to this group have been carried out in later 

 years (Browne 1907, Mayer 1910), it may be stated, that the Mediterranean '■'■Thantiiantias incditerra7ied'\ 

 Gegenbaur, the North-American-Atlantic Laodicea calcayata A. Agassiz, and the Tropical-Atlantic 

 Laodice uloihn'x Haeckel are identical with the North-European Laodicea iindulata (Forbes and Good- 

 sir). Mayer is undoubtedly right, when he refers to the same species the Laodicca maraina Agassiz 

 and Mayer (from the Fiji Islands), a species which, according to the description (1899) is exactly like 

 a young niid/ilata. Z. iiidica Browne (from Ceylon) is very like L. inidi/lata, from which it is only 

 distinguished (according to Browne 1905b) "in having no spur at the base of the tentacles, in 

 having larger ocelli, and perhaps in colour and size", characters to which, as will be understood from 

 what is said above, we may hardly assign any specific importance. Cirri are present in L. indica, 

 though only in small numbers. 



In 1899 A. Agassiz and Mayer described a small medusa from the Fiji Islands, Laodicca 

 Jijiaiia; the most characteristic features of this species are the lacking of cirri, the very small number of 

 cordyli, and the gonads which, in spite of the small size of the animal (6 mm), were provided with 

 "complex diverticulae". Tentacular spurs are not mentioned nor figured. — Maas (1905, Siboga-E-xped.) 

 describes a Laodicea from the Indian Archipelago and refers it to Laodicea fijiana^ though it is much 

 larger, being 20 mm wide; he is apt to suppose, however, that it belongs to a local variety, to which 

 he will apply the name of var. indica. Browne (1907 p. 466) find.s, that there is so much difference 

 betwe^H the two forms, that it will be correct, in any case provisionally, to describe that medusa as 

 an independent species, which lie calls L. Maasii. As the most decisive difference Browne calls 

 attention to the fact, that basal spurs are present on the tentacles of L. Maasii^ whereas such are not 

 described in fijiatia. This, however, does not contradict the supposition, that L. fijiana may be a young 

 stage of L. maasii (it was mentioned above that spurs are not developed in young individuals of Z. 

 undulata from the northern seas). The length of the gonads in Z. maasii \s highly variable; Maas writes 

 as follows (p. 26j:" . . . ich habe jiingere Exemplare gesehen, bei deiien die Geschlechtsproducte bis an die 

 Peripherie reichten, und alte mit strotzenden Ovarien, die nur etwa die halbe Lange der Radiarcanale ein- 

 nahmen." The length of the gonads can, accordingly, have no great importance for specific distinction. The 

 structure of the gonads involves more difficulty. In Z. maasii the gonads are provided with simple lateral 

 extensions, whereas in Z. fjiana the proximal parts of the radial canals "exhibit complex diverticulae", 

 on which the gonads are situated. This is only a difference in degree, it is true, which has no decisive 

 importance; but, on the other hand, J;he specimens of L. fijiana, in any case the female individuals, 



