CTENOPHORA. 65 



size varying from ca. 2 to ca. 25"'"' in diameter. It is stated to occur mainly on the ice-foot, stretching 

 its long tentacles horizontally over the ice. (A coloured sketch of the animal leaves no doubt that it 

 was really M. ovum). 



This species doubtless occurs all along the Greenland Coast, both the West and East Coast. 

 With the cold polar stream it is carried down along the North American East Coast, probably as far 

 south as the influence of this stream prevails here, viz. to Cape Cod. From Iceland it is recorded by 

 Faber'), who states to have found it especially at the North Coast, and also once at the Westmann- 

 Islands. The latter statement is scarcely correct. Its occurence at the North Coast of Iceland is cer- 

 tainly due to the Polar Stream, which must evidently also carry the species down along the East Coast; 

 but the Polar Stream does not reach to the Westmann Islands. Faber has then here most probably 

 mistaken a Plcurobrachia pileus for M. ovitin. It is further known to occur also at Spitzbergen and 

 in the Bering Sea, so that it is doubtless circumpolar, as maintained by Chun (Ctenophoreu d. 

 Plankton-Expedition, p. 10), Romer and Vanhoffen. It is a very decided cold-water form, limited 

 to the polar waters, as pointed out by Romer. It is not in accordance herewith that it is also recorded 

 from the coast of California and further from some Norwegian fjords and Skagerak. The statement of 

 its occurrence at CaHfornia is due to Torrey. In his paper "The Ctenophores of the San Diego Region" 

 he figures (PI. I. i) a Ctenophore which is designated as Meriensia ovum — but only in the explanation 

 of the plate; in the text it is not mentioned with a word. I quite agree with Moser (Op. cit. p. 126) 

 that it is not Mertensia ovum, as is at once seen from the rounded apical side of the body and from 

 the shape and position of the tentacle-base.s. Whether it is a Hormiphora, as suggested by Moser, 

 I do not feel convinced; but here the fact only concerns us that it is not Mertensia ovum .^ this species 

 beinof thus not known from the Californian coast. 



The statement of its occurrence in Norwegian fjords is due to D. Dam as & E. Koefoed^): 

 "Nous ne I'avons observee dans les regions septentrionales que dans les fiords profonds de la Norvege 

 et elle est signalee dans le Skagerak. Mais elle se trouve la exclusivement dans les couches profon- 

 des, tandis qu'au Spitzbergen c'est une forme de surface". I have been unable to find in the literature 

 the statement of its occurrence in the deep waters of the Skagerak to which Damas & Koefoed 

 refer; but even if M. ovum has really been recorded from there, I must doubt the correctness. And 

 also for the alleged observation of M. ovum in the deep fjords of Norway it is not seen, how the 

 correctness of the observation has been ascertained — nor is it stated in which fjords it was observed; 

 I therefore think that the occurence of this species in the Norwegian fjords cannot be taken as an 

 established fact. 



The occurrence of M. ovtim in the Bering Sea rests on the supposition that Mer ten's Beroe 

 compressa and octoptera are identical with M. ovum, it having not later been recorded from there 3). 

 But the identity of these species of Mertens with M. ovum has recently been decidedly objected to 



■ Fr. Faber. Naturgeschichte der Fische Islands. Mit eineni Anhange von den isliindischen Medusen und Strahl- 

 tliieren. 1829. p. 202. | 



2) Le Plankton de la Mer du Griinland. Due d' Orleans. Croisiere oceanographiqtie dans la mer du Gronlaud 

 en 1905. (p. 416). 



3) In the Report of the International Polar Expedition to Point Barrow, Alaska (Washington, 1S85) tlie species is 

 recorded as observed near Point Barrow, the identification being made by I. W. Fewkes after sketches made on the expedition. 



The Ingolf Expediiion. V. a. 9 



