172 BULLETIN 100, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



description of this species. De Blainville's reference is insufficient for iden- 

 tification. 



S. emarglnata Quoy and Gaimard, 1824, can not be identified. 



S. fasciata ForskAl, 1775 (quoted by Bruguiere, 1789, Lamarck, 1816, and de 

 Blainville, 1827), Traustedt (1885) thinks this may have been S . fusiformis . 



S.forskalii Lesson, 1832, is said by Traustedt (1885) to be S. maxima, and the 

 identification seems probable because of the size of the animal. 



S. fusiformis Guvier, 1804. There is confusion in Cuvier's paper. An aggregated 

 zooid of S. fusiformis is called 5. cylindrica and a solitary Pegea confederata is 

 named S. fusiformis. Strictly the reference "S. fusiformis, Cuv., ]804," is 

 mistaken and one can not be wholly certain of Cuvier's intention. It is best, 

 however, to let the reference stand, interpreting the discrepancy as mere con- 

 fusion. 



S. garnotii Lesson, 1832, shows a general resemblance to S. cylindrica, but 

 can not be identified. 



5. gibba Bosc, 1802, is said by Traustedt (1885) to be Pegea confederata, but the 

 identification seems to me doubtful. 



S. herculea Dall, 1872, is apparently Thetys vagina, as is shown by Dall's unpub- 

 lished drawings, which he kindly showed me. 



S. informis Quoy and Gaimard, 1824, probably Pegea confederata, as is indicated 

 by the two sets of body muscles. 



S. laevis Lesson, 1832, can not be identified. 



5. lineata Lesson, 1832, can not be identified. 



S. mollis Herdman, 1888, a doubtful form based on a single imperfectly pre- 

 served specimen. Possibly it may be a somewhat aberrant solitary individual 

 of S. fusiformis, subspecies aspera. 



S. moniliformis Macculloch, 1819, is said by Traustedt (1885) to be S. fusiformis. 

 Hopkinson (1913) questions its being a salpa at all. I have not found the 

 reference in Macculloch 's paper. Fleming (1842), referring to Macculloch 's 

 description, says, "At each extremity of the back |"the dorsal and ventral 

 sides were generally reversed in early descriptions of Salpas] there is a conical 

 longitudinal process nearly equal to the body in length." If this be a salpa 

 at all it must be 5. fusiformis, aggregated zooid, unless, indeed, it is 5. maxima, 

 variety tuberculata, which seems altogether improbable. 



£. neapolitana Delle Chiaje, 1841, probably Thetys vagina. 



S. nitida Herdman, 1888, probably not distinct from Iasis zonaria, but merely 

 a delicate form. The aggregated zooids show a dorsal eye and a remarkable 

 pair of lateral outgrowths from the ganglion, containing irregular rod-cells, 

 all of which seem from Herdman 's figures to be identical with the correspond- 

 ing structures in Iasis zonaria. 



S. pelasgica Bosc, 1802, is said by Traustedt (1885) to be Cyclosalpa pinnata, 

 but the identification seems to me very doubtful. 



S. polymorpha Quoy and Gaimard, 1824, not a salpa. 



S. pyramidalis Quoy and Gaimard, 1826-1834, probably Thalia democratica. 



S. pyramidalis Lesson, 1832, probably Salpa fusiformis. 



S. quadrangularis Lesson, 1832, possibly Iasis zonaria. 



S. quadrata Herdman, 1888, seems to be an embryo of Pegea confederata. 



S. rhomboides Quoy and Gaimard, 1824 (rhomboidalis Meyen, 1832) can not be 

 identified, apparently not a salpa. 



S. rubrolineata Lesson, 1832, can not be identified. 



S. sipho ForskAl, 1775, not a salpa. 



S. socia Bosc, 1802, is said by Traustedt (1885) to be Pegea confederata, but the 

 identification seems to me very doubtful. 



S. solitaria ForskAl, 1775, not a salpa. 



