SYSTEMATIC AND BIOLOGICAL ACCOUNT 53 



Attention may be called to Kawamura's excellent figures (191 16; pi. 7, figs. 1-10) of CupuKta picta, 

 which have escaped mention in the synonymy lists. He took many specimens at Misaki in the 

 months of January and February. He noted that they carried from ten to fifty nectophores and more 

 than ten cormidia. The bracts and their distribution were described by Kawamura. He said they 

 were generally in four longitudinal rows round the stem, each siphon having an extremely large and 

 long bract close to it. The only colour he noted was that of the reddish cnidoband of the tentillum. 

 He agreed that Stephanomia bijuga is not identical with Agassiz's Nanomia cara, but he had not resolved 

 the confusion of at least two species under Sars's (1846) name Agalmopsis elegans, and in error said 

 in his generic diagnosis that Cupulita had trifid tentilla. His description of C. picta, however, was 

 good, and his figure of the whole animal is perhaps the best in existence. His figures of the nectophores 

 are excellent and characteristic, and show that they are quite different from those of the species figured 

 by Sars (1846; Tab. 6, fig. 3) and renamed by Haeckel (18886) C. sarsii. The Siphonophore whose 

 abundance at Salcombe, Devon, was noted by Berrill (1930) but not studied morphologically, was 

 probably C. sarsii and not Stephanomia bijuga. The oil-filled diverticulum at the base of the palpon 

 appears to be characteristic of Cupulita sarsii. Forty years ago Bigelow raised the question whether 

 the southern Stephanomia bijuga (Cupulita picta Metchnikoff) was distinct from a northern form 

 Nanomia cara Agassiz. I have examined specimens labelled cara by Bigelow and taken by ' Albatross II ' 

 (St. 213 1 5) just north of Cape Cod, and other specimens that agree with them but differ from those 

 of the Mediterranean species bijuga. These other specimens were collected (1) by Miss Delap at 

 Valentia Island, Ireland, where I myself collected a mature specimen on 3 May 195 1 ; (2) in the Celtic 

 Sea between Ireland and Cornwall, and sent to me by the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth; 

 (3) by ' Scotia' in 195 1 to the north-west of the British Isles; (4) in Norwegian waters, a single necto- 

 phore. The nectophores of all these specimens agree with each other, and with the figure made by 

 Sars, in being flattened at right-angles to the long axis of the whole animal. They differ from those 

 of Nanomia bijuga ( = Cupulita picta) which are flattened in a plane parallel with the long axis of the 

 whole animal. 



I have therefore come to the conclusion that there are two closely allied species (a) Cupulita sarsii 

 Haeckel, 18886, found in Norwegian and British waters, and probably identical with the North-west 

 Atlantic form Nanomia cara Agassiz, and (b) a Tropical Atlantic, Mediterranean, West Indian, Indian 

 Ocean and warm-water Pacific species, referred to by Bigelow (191 lb) as Stephanomia bijuga. As to 

 applying to these two related species the prior generic name valid for either of them, my opinion is 

 as follows: 



Stephanomia (1807) is the name of a monotypic genus, the identity of whose only species amphytridis 

 Les. & Petit is exceedingly doubtful. Cupulita (1824) is also monotypic, and the identity of its only 

 species, bowditchii Q. & G., is very doubtful. Agalmopsis Sars, 1846, was set up for two species; 

 and was subsequently used by Kolliker (18536) for the component with trifid tentilla. But most of 

 Sars's account and all the figures, except for two of the tentilla of his form b (an Agalma) refer to my 

 species (a). Agalmopsis was restricted by Haeckel (18886, p. 234) to the other component with trifid 

 tentilla. There seems to be little doubt that Agalmopsis is the prior and correct name of the genus 

 in question. Halistemma (1859) was published by Huxley for a species from East Australian waters, 

 represented only by the siphosome of a specimen. The identity of Huxley's species has not been 

 established. And so we come to the name Nanomia Agassiz, 1863. The figures of nectophores and 

 palpons given by Agassiz (1865) for N. cara show the relationship of this species to, and its differences 

 from bijuga ; and the differences of both species from species of other genera. I give three views of 

 a nectophore of N. cara (Cupulita sarsii) taken by me in May 195 1 on the ebb tide, off the landing 

 stage of Valentia Island, Co. Kerry, Ireland; and a view of a nectophore of Nanomia bijuga taken 



