198 PRAYINAE. 



ments on the special nectophores. Schneider ('98) has retained the specific 

 name diphyes, but this is preoccupied by Kolliker ('53) and by Vogt ('54), and 

 the next available name, medusa Metschnikoff, must be used. 



A member of the subfamily, without special nectophores, well known from 

 the Mediterranean, seems to have been described by Delle Chiaje ('42) as 

 Physalia cymbiformis. And since the middle of the last century it has been 

 known almost universallj^ as Praya cymbiformis Delle Chiaje, or Praya maxima 

 Gegenbaur. The genus Praya was proposed in 1834 by Blainville for a species 

 which he called Praya dubia. In his description he states that it is the same as 

 the Diphyes dubia of Quoy and Gaimard ('34) whose unfinished manuscript 

 he had examined, and his brief account agrees fairly well with that species. 

 But his figure shows no resemblance whatever to Quoy and Gaimard's figures 

 of D. dubia. On the contrary it much more nearly resembles their D. prayensis. 

 The latter has usually been taken to be Rosacea plicata, but the figures agree 

 with the well-known cymbiformis much more closely than with prayensis. By 

 identifying them with the latter Blainville's dubia becomes a synonym of 

 cymbiformis (it is the figures which must be used as the clue, rather than the 

 insufficient account), and cymbiformis thus the type of Praya. This is very 

 desirable, for it gives assured standing to a name which has long been in use. 



Praya calif ornica Gravier ('99) very closely resembles cymbiformis in its 

 general form. It is separated from it, according to Gravier ('99), by the form 

 of its bracts and by the structure of the tentilla. . But, as I have observed, 

 preserved and distorted bracts of cymbiformis often agree very well with Gravier' s 

 figure. The swelling which he observed at the base of the tentilla is of no more 

 importance as a diagnostic character, because a similar appearance has been 

 figured for contracted tentilla in cymbiformis by Haeckel ('88b, pi. 32, fig. 14), 

 and I may add that I have observed it both in Mediterranean and in Pacific 

 specimens. It is merely an evidence of the contraction of the stalk immediately 

 proximal to the nematocyst-band. As to Gravier's supposition that his species 

 might perhaps have only one nectophore normally, I may point out that the 

 older nectophore is so easily detached that its absence in one specimen can have 

 no weight. Therefore I have no hesitation in uniting californica with cymbi- 

 formis, especially since the present collection shows that the latter occurs in 

 the Pacific. i 



Praya and Rosacea are united by Schneider ('98) in one genus, Rosacea. 

 But I agree with Chun and with most other authors that the presence or absence 

 of special nectophores in the groups of appendages is of generic importance both 



