76 



CTENOPHORA. 



Bolrna iufundibjthtvi Martens. Chvin. Ctenophoren d. Plankton-Exped. 1898. p. 22. 



— — (O. F. Miiller). F. Romer. Ctenophoren. Fauna arctica. III. 1903. p. 78. 



— — (Fabricius). Vanhoffen. Ctenophoren. Nordisches Plankton. 1903. p. 5. 



— scpteutn'onalis Merii&ns. Vanhoffen. Die gronlandischen Ctenophoren. Bibl. Zool. VIII. 1895. p. 19. 



— infimdihulmn Martens. F. Mo sen Japanische Ctenophoren. (Beitr. z. Naturg. Ostasiens, herausg. 



V. Doflein). 1908. p. 48. 



Regarding the synonymy of this species I would first point out that the author of the name 

 mfundibubim is O. Fr. Miiller, as rightly stated by Romer (Op. cit), but not Fabricius, and still 

 less Martens, who did not mention this form by any other name than the "Springbrunner Rotzfisch". 

 This was translated by O. Fr. Miiller, in his "Prodromus Zoologise Danicse", into "^^/'t'g m/?/«rfr'^?^/M;«'V 

 this is correctly given by Chun in his Monograph (p. 294), but in his "Ctenophoren d. Plankton-Ex- 

 pedition" (p. 13) he says that "Fabricius iibersetzte diese Bezeichnung mit Beroe infundibuhim" , and 

 this latter incorrect statement is repeated by Moser (Japanische Ctenophoren, p. 52). 



Tlie Cydippe quadricostafa of Sars is ranged by Moser (Ctenophoren d. deutschen Siidpolar- 

 Exped. p. 163) among the quite uncertain species. It was pointed out already by Mc. Crady') that it 

 probably represents only the young of BoUiia hifundibulum [Mnemia norvegica M. Sars), which interpre- 

 tation was adopted by A. Agassiz (North American Acalephse; p. 13) and by Chun (Monograph, 

 p. 125). No arguments are given by Moser against this interpretation of Cydippe qiiadricostata, and 

 it seems, indeed, indisputable. No other Ctenophores occur in Norwegian seas, or uj^on the whole in 

 the North Atlantic, to which it could be referred. It is true, Auri villius^) regards it as identical 

 with Horviiphora plurtiosa ; but it is by no means a sure fact that Hormiphora plumosa occurs in the 

 North European Seas (coinp. below). There are also no morphological reasons for referring it to any 

 other form than Boliiia infundibulum. 



That the species mentioned by M'Intosh (Op. cit.) as Lesucnrin vitrca is really BoUiia iii/uii- 

 dibuluni cannot be doubted, as was rightly pointed out by Vanhoffen (Gronlandische Ctenophoren, 

 p. 19). Also Evans & Ashworth (Op. cit. p. 310) appear to be of this opinion. 



Concerning BoUnaalata Agass. I quite agree with Moser that it caimot be distinguished from 

 B. infundibuhmi. The same is, I think, the case with Bolina microptera A. Ag. In the description of 

 this form (loc. cit.) Agassiz points out as one of its specific characters that "the lateral lobes are 

 very short, with complicated windings of the long ambulacral tubes". This might perhaps seem to 

 indicate that it is really a separate species; but as I have found a rather considerable variation in this 

 regard in the specimens of Bolina infundibulum observed by me during a stay at the Biological station 

 of Trondhjem last summer (191 1), I do not think this a feature of sufficient importance for maintaining 

 B. iiiicropiera as a separate species ■ — the more so as no figures are given of it. The question can 

 perhaps not be regarded as definitely settled at present; in any case careful studies of living material 

 of this as well as of the other American species, Bolina vitrea L,. Agass., are very desirable. The beautiful 



1) John Mc. Crady. On the development of two Species of Ctenophora, found in Charleston Harbor. (Proc. Elliot 

 Soc. Nat. Historj'. Charleston S. C. 1857. p. 8). 



2) C. W. S. An ri villius. Vergleicheude thiergeographische Untersuchungen iiber die Plankton-Fauna des Skage- 

 raks in den Jahren 1893— 1897. Kgl. Svenska Vet. Akad. Ilandlingar. Bd. 30. No. 3. 1898. p. 27. 



