MEDUSA. I. 



39 



Stated. The specimens from the "Tjalfe" expedition were all found in July and August. With regard 

 to the other material no information of the time of collection are present. 



Genus Staurophora Brandt. 

 Staurophora mertensii Brandt. 



Plate I, fig. 9; Plate II, figs. 9—10; Plate III, fig. 7. 



Staitrophora uiertciisu Brandt 1838. Schirmquallen. - Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. vSt Petersb. Ser. 6. Tom. 4. 



— p. 400. Taf. 24—25. 



— lacimata L. Agassiz 1849. Contrib. Nat. Hist, of the Acalepha; of North America. — 



p. 300. PI. 7. 

 Oceania iimlticirrata M. Sars 1851. Beretning . . . Reise i Lofoten og Finmarken. — Nyt Magazin f. 



Naturv. Bd. 6. — p. 158. 

 Staiiroplwra vitrea M. Sars 1863. Geol. og zool. lagttag. . . . Reise i Trondhjems Stift. — Ibid. 1863. 



- P- 339- 



— Keithn Peach 1867. 



Staurostoma arctica Haeckel 1879. System der Medusen. — p. 131. 



Thaumantias niclaiiops Mc Intosh 1890. Notes from the St. Andrews Mar. Lab. — Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 



Ser. 6. Vol. V. — p. 40. PI. 8. 

 Staurophora falklamiica Browne 1907. Revision of the . . . Laodiceidic. — Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. 7. 



Vol. XX. — p. 472. 



— — Browne 1908. Medusae, Scottish Nat. Antarct. Exped. — Trans. R. Soc. Ediiib. 



Vol. XLVI. Part II. - p. 235. PI. I, figs. 1—7. 



— discoidea Kishinouye 1910. Some iVIedusas of Japanese Waters. — Journ. Coll. Sci. Imp. 



Univ. Tokyo. V^ol. 27. — p. 29. 



The genus Staitrophora was established and the species mertensii was described by Brandt 

 from drawings and notes of Mertens, who had collected this interesting medusa in the northern 

 Pacific during his circumnavigation. L. Agassiz (1849) gave a new description of the genus, 

 based on several specimens from Boston Harbour, North America. Agassiz rightly referred his speci- 

 mens to the genus Staurophora Brandt, but established a new species, Staurophora laciniata. The de- 

 scription given by Agassiz is very thorough and clear. He has not, however, observed the cordyli, 

 and none of his specimens were full-grown; later investigations, therefore, have occasioned certain 

 alterations of the description of the species. The species is now so well known that it is unnecessary 

 to give a general description in this place. Maas (1893) and Hartlaub (1897) have demonstrated 

 that it is unreasonable to separate Staurophora arctica from the genus Staurophora and place it in a 

 proper genus Staurostoma; Haeckel (18791 even placed the two genera within two different families 

 at the same time as he observed that they were nearly related. 



With regard to the systematical position there can be no doubt but that the nearest relatives 

 of Staurophora are the genera Laodicea and Ptychogena. Mayer (1910), however, separates the genus 

 widely from these genera and places it within the family EucopidcE on account of the presence of 



