CORYNE. 265 



In 1S29, however, Sars i drew attention to the lieterogeneous nature of the group Cori/wj 

 as then accepted by systematists, and proposed to break it up into two genera, retaining tlie 

 name of Corijnc for the Hydra squamata of Miiller, and referring the true Corynes of Gartner to 

 a separate genus, which lie named Stipula, apparently unaware tliat the forms which he desired 

 to include under his new genus were those for which Gartner had long previously founded his 

 genus C'ori/iic. 



'riiough Sars has tluis done good service in discriminating foi'ius falsely associated, there was 

 no need for his new name, Stipula ; for it is plain that he ought to have retained in the genus 

 Coryne the forms for which this genus had been founded by Gartner, while he should ha\e 

 assigned the Hydra squamata to the genus Clava, already constituted for it by Gmelin. 



We next find Ehrenberg^ accepting the dismemberment of Coryne, as proposed by Sars, 

 l)ut instead of objecting to the name of Stipula on the ground that it was needless, he objects 

 to it on the ground that it was already in use among the botanists ; and then, instead of referring 

 the Hydra squamata to its legitimate genus, Clava, and restoring to its proper place Giu'tner's 

 name of Coryne, he introduces the generic name of Syiicoryne, to supplant the Stipula of Sars. 

 The Coryne of Gartner, Stipula of Sars, and Syncoryne of Ehrenberg, are thus merely synouymes 

 of the same group. 



But though the group under these different names was accurately determined, it began once 

 more to lose its unity by the introduction into it of forms gcnerically distinct from the original 

 Coryne, and a new dismemberment was accordingly called for. 



This dismemberment I adopted some years ago.^ The grounds on which it must be based 

 will be found, not in the trophosome, but in the gonosome, the gonophores of which, in some of 

 the species included by modern systematists under the genus Coryne or Syncoryne, are adelocodonic, 

 while in others they are phanerocodonic ; and again, among these phanerocodonic gonophores 

 forms will be found which differ from one another by characters of generic value. 



If we can satisfy ourselves as to the form Gartner had in view when he constituted his genus 

 Coryne, there can be no doubt as to those to which this name must now be restricted. The whole 

 question, therefore, necessarily turns on the identification of the Coryne pusiUa of Gartner. 



It must be admitted that we cannot always determine with certainty the exact species 

 which the earlier systematists had iiefore them in their descriptions, for it was not until a more 

 accurate knowledge of the structure and life-history of the Hydroiua pointed to the significance 

 of certain characters previously overlooked that the true value of these characters could be recog- 

 nised in systematic zoology. There can be thus no doubt that many very distinct species, and 

 even genera, of hydroids have been described under the same name ; and though our attempts 

 at the identification of many of the hydroids referred to in the writings of the last century and 

 the earlier parts of the present can have little more than approximate results, still I believe that 

 we shall be justified in regarding as Gartner's " pusilla'' a well detennined and abundant species 

 of our shores. 



It is by no means easy to find among the true Corynes characters available for specific dis- 

 tinction, and most of the forms which have been described as distinct are far from being so strongly 



' ' Bidrag til Soedj'rencs Natuiiiistorie,' p. 4. 



- ' Corallcnthiere,' 1833. 



^ 'Ann. Nat. Hist.,' for May, 18G1. 



