CUNINA. 55 



specimen, only about 2 mm. in diameter (PI. 16, fig. S). Although there is 

 no proboscis, the mouth being surrounded by a simple circular lip, the 

 stomach cavity is deeper than is usual in this family, owing to the arched 

 form of its aboral wall (PI. 15, fig. J^). 



The only specimen showing any trace of gonads was the largest (7 mm. 

 in diameter). In this individual, apparently a male, the sexual products 

 form thickenings of the ventral surfaces of the gastric pockets. 



The medusa is entirely colorless. 



Cunina Eschscholtz, 1829. 

 sens. em. Maas (: 04^ : 04'^). 



Cunanthidae with otoporpae and with nine or more tentacles and mar- 

 ginal lappets. 



In attempting an identification of the two species of Cunina in the present 

 collection I have been forced to attempt a rough revision of the genus ; a 

 difficult task on account of the unsatisfactory nature of most of the early (and 

 even some of the later) descriptions and figures, as well as because our 

 knowledge of the young stages is still too scanty to be of much assistance 

 in the systematic study of the genus. To make a final revision is entirely 

 out of the question, unless one has access to much more extensive collections 

 than I have studied ; but so puzzling is this genus that I have thought it 

 well to add certain conclusions which I have myself reached, in the hope 

 that they may help to clear the ground for future students. 



In Haeckel'sCTO) "system" ten speciesarelisted with numerous synonyms. 

 It is evident, however, that the distinctions between them are by no means 

 satisfactory, and that his treatment of the older species is in some cases mis- 

 leading. To begin with, it seems to me essential to eliminate entirely as nom- 

 ina nuda such names as are based on unrecognizable figures or descriptions ; 

 on descriptions equally applicable to any member of the genus ; or on speci- 

 mens so poorly preserved as to be specifically unrecognizable. From this 

 standpoint I have concluded to abandon the following, since there seems no 

 possibility of ever certainly identifying them : — C. vitrea Gegenbaur, because 

 the only figure and description are insufficient, C. mucillaghwsa de Blainvdle, 

 for the same reason, the description being equally applicable to any mem- 

 ber of the genus ; C. oligotis Haeckel and C. striata Metschnikoff, because they 

 are evidently founded on larval specimens, whose connection with adult 



