31 



som de omtalte Forhoiuinger, der dækker Ektodcrmpudens 

 Overflade. 



Findested. St. 353. 



Fani. Myriotlielidae. 



Siden Opdagelsen af M. lihrt/fiia. den tidligst kjendte 

 Art af denne eiendommelige Familie (den blev beskrevet 

 forst af Fabricius, som Luconuiria phriigia og senere af 

 M. Sårs som Mijriothda ardica), er der fremkommet for- 

 skjellige Forslag angaaende dens Stilling i Systemet. Alder 

 vikle placere den lilandt Tulmhtridae, paa Grund af dens 

 Ligbed med Acmdis; Allman sluttede sig til denne Syns- 

 maade ogsaa paa Grund af den Lighed, som tindes mellem 

 IlyriofJiela og Tiihdari a- Arter, derved at begge Slægter i 

 sin Udvikling mangler det sværmende Stadium; (Larverne 

 har allerede naar de kommer ud af Gonoforen antaget den 

 unge Hydroides Form, og sætter sig meget snart fast for at 

 danne en ny Koloni). Hhicl'S (50) protesterer mod denne 

 Sammenstillen, og gjor opmerksom paa den Eiendomrae- 

 liglied hos Mijriothelu, at dens Gonoforer bæres af coryile- 

 formige Polyper, uden Mundaabning, i Lighed med Bla- 

 stostylerne hos Hijdradinia og Dicoryne. Han opfatter 

 derfor Myriofhela som „a duster of polypites nearly rela- 

 ted to Coryue" : men paa Grund af dens Eiendommelig- 

 beder lader ban den staa som Typen for en egen Famile. 



Sdmeider kakler Myriofhela „ein editer Corynide-', 

 og siger, at hvis Gonoforbærerne skal tydes som Coryne- 

 lignende Polyper, da er Myriofhela en forgrenet, og ikke, 

 som man for har ment, en solitær Form. og med Blasto- 

 stylerne siddende paa Stammen. 



Man troede længe, at de forskjellige Beskrivelser af 

 Myriofliela alle omhandlede en og samme Art, indtil G. 

 O. Sårs (97) paaviste, at den af de britiske Zoologer un- 

 dersogte Art er en anden end den oprindelige, af Fabri- 

 cius og M. Sårs beskrevne Myriofhela phrr/c/ia. og at 

 Arterne skiller sig ved sin Tillieftningsmaade og ved Bla- 

 stostylernes Form. 



Den Form, som de britiske Forskere nærmest har 

 nndorsogt er Myriofliela corJidi, der har en pladeformig 

 udbredt Hydrorhiza, dækket af chitinøs Perisarc, og dens 

 proximale Del kan muligens betragtes som en Hydrocaulus^ 

 paa hvilken de halvt atrophierede Hydranther (Blastostyler) 

 sidder, medens kun en Hydranth — den terminale — er 

 fuldt udviklet, og denne overgaar langt de øvrige i Størrelse. 

 M. phrygia derimod har ingen Hydrocaulus, ingen Perisarc 

 og kun svagt udviklet Hydrorhiza — hele Kolonien repre- 

 senteres ved en eneste, ofte enormt udviklet, Hydranth, 

 paa hvilken Blastostylerne sidder indimellem Tentaklerne. 



distal entl of nil these tine rami, and are visible externally 

 in the form of the above-mentioned elevations, covering the 

 surface of the ectcderra cushion. 

 Locality. Station 353. 



Jeg har ikke liavt Anledning til selv at undersøge denne Art, 

 og kan saaledes ikke bestemt ndtale mig om dens Bygning. 



Fani. Myriothelidae. 



Since the discovery of M. phrygia, the earliest known 

 species of this peculiar family (descril)ed first by Fahricius as 

 Lucer)iaria phryyia, and sul^sequeiltly by .1/. Sårs as My- 

 riofhela arcfica), several suggestions have been made as to 

 its position in the system. Alder wished to plaee it among 

 Tidndaridæ, on account of its resemblance to Acaidis, and 

 Allman shared his view, not only on this account, hut also 

 because of a resemblance between species of Myriofhela 

 and Tulndaria, in the absence of the swimming stage in 

 the development of both genera, as the larvæ, by the time 

 they emerge from the gonophores, !\ave assumed the form 

 of the young hydroid, and very soon bocome fixed in order 

 to form a new colony. Hincks (50) protests against this 

 classification. and draws attention to a pecularity in Myri- 

 ofliela, namely, that its gonophores are carried by Coryne- 

 shaped polyps without oral aperture, resembling the bla- 

 stostyles in Hydradinia and Dicoryne. He therefore looks 

 upon Myriofliela as ,.a duster of polypites nearly related 

 to Coryne" : but on account of its peculiarities, he allows 

 it to stand as the type of a separate family. 



Sdmeider calls Myriofhela „ein echter Corynide-, 

 and says that if the bearers of the gonophores are to be 

 interpreted as Coryne-Mke. polypites, Myriofhela is ramified. 

 witli the blastostyles on the stem, and not, as has hitherto 

 been thought, a solitary form. 



It was long thought that all the various descriptions 

 of Myriofhela treated of one and the same species. until 

 G. 0. Sa7-s (97) proved that the species examined by the 

 British zoologists differs fi-om the original Myriofhela 

 phrygia desci-ibed Ijy Fabricius and M. Sårs, and tiiat the 

 species were distinguished from one anotber by the manner 

 in which they were attached, and by the shape of the bla- 

 stostyles. 



The form that has been most thoroughly examined 

 by British naturalists is Myriofhela codisii, which has a 

 lamelliform expansion of the hydrorhiza, covered by a chi- 

 tinous perisarc, and a proximal part that may possibly be 

 regarded as a hydrocaulus \ upon which are the semi-- 

 atrophied hydranths (blastostyles) while only one hydranth, 

 the terminal one — which far surpasses the others in size 

 — is fully developed. M. phrygia on the other hand, has 

 no hydrocaulus, no perisarc, and only a feebly developed 

 hydrorhiza. The entire colony is represented by a single, 

 often enormously developed hydranth, on whieh tJie blasto- 

 styles and the tentacles stand intermingled. 



I have liad no oportunity of examining this species myself, 

 and cannot therefore make any decided statement as to its 

 structui-e. 



