A revision of Ernst Haeckel's determinations of a collection of Medusae 1 65 



Polyclonia frondosa. 

 1880, p. 568. 

 [Cassiopea frondosa (Pallas).] 

 (187 and 188) West-Indies; Nat. Hist. Mus. Copenhagen. 2 specimens. 



(189) St. Croix, West-Indies; Orsted and Ravn, 1836. 3 specimens. 



(190) West-Indies; Suensson. 1 specimen. 



Polyrhiza vesiculosa. 

 1880, p. 577. 

 [Netrostoma coerulescens Maas.] 

 (185) Gulf of Suez, Red Sea; Koch, 1872. 1 specimen. 

 The specimen is mentioned by Haeckel in his monograph. It was re-examined by 

 Stiasny (1922 A, p. 527), who found that this specimen most probably belongs to 

 Netrostoma coerulescens Maas, and I think he was right in this respect. 



Stomolophus fritillaria Haeckel . 

 1880, p. 598, PI. XXXV. 

 {Stomolophus meleagris L. Agassiz, \ar. fritillaria.] 

 (195, 196, 197) Surinam, on the northern Atlantic coast of South America; 

 Mus. zootom. Hafn. 3 specimens. 



Haeckel's description and beautiful figures of this species were based on these 

 specimens. 



In our collection is a fourth specimen (No. 198 in the list) of unknown origin, 

 likewise identified by Haeckel as S. fritillaria. The locality where it was taken is 

 given as 43° N. 61° 30' W., i.e. near Nova Scotia! The specimen is in an excellent 

 condition, and there is no doubt of the correctness of the identification, but it seems 

 impossible that any of the two species of Stomolophus might occur so far to the north; 

 the distribution of both species is decidedly tropical. Evidently the note of the locality, 

 in the label as well as in the list, must be due to some error. 



There is no doubt that Stomolophus agaricus Haeckel (see below) is identical with 

 5". meleagris Agassiz, and S. chunii Vanhoffen belongs either to meleagris or to 

 fritillaria, but the relation between these two latter species has been much discussed. 



Mayer (1910, p. 711) regards S. fritillaria as a southern variety of S. meleagris. 

 " The only valid distinction between this medusa and S. meleagris are in its large 

 number of marginal lappets, and in the cleft in the middle of each octant of velar 

 lappets. Also the 16 scapulets are hidden well up under the bell instead of extending 

 down to about the level of the bell margin." Moreover, S. fritillaria does not seem to 

 grow to a larger size than 80 mm in diameter, whereas meleagris may attain a diameter 

 of 120 mm. Bigelow (1914, pp. 239-241) likewise unites the two species. Stiasny, 

 however, who examined several specimens from Dutch and British Guiana and 

 Trinidad (Stiasny, 1922 b, pp. 55-59; 1931, pp. 169-175) recognizes S. Jritillaria as 

 a valid species, though in the latter of these papers he points out so much variability 

 in both forms that he admits that Bigelow may be right. Unfortunately, Stiasny 

 had not seen the original specimens in Copenhagen; he even states in a footnote 

 (1922, p. 55) that they had disappeared; fortunately, they have been rediscovered in 

 our collection, so I have been able to examine them. Bigelow (1940, p. 316) once 

 more discussed the question of the two species and concluded that *' the union of 



