574 Chas. W. Hargitt. 



to regeneration following a marginal injury. A close inspection 

 of the notch just beyond the complex network of canals will reveal 

 the presence of a small rhopalium, indistinct in the illustration, 

 but very distinct in the specimen. To Browne's suggestion that 

 the absence of a marginal body may be due to injury it will suffice 

 to have called attention to the fact that these organs are promptly 

 regenerated and therefore would not probably be long lacking in 

 any case in which sufficient time had elapsed for the injury to heal. 



Concerning variations in the canals of Aurelia it remains to call 

 attention to some few points not hitherto considered. In several 

 of the photographic figures are shown varying features of anas- 

 tomosis among the canals, chiefly in the peripheral portions. In 

 addition to the case just referred to others are shown in Figs. I and 6. 

 In that of Fig. i is shown at various points the usual type of 

 anastomosis, while in Fig. 6 of the hexamerous specimen is shown 

 a most complicated type affecting only one-half of the umbrella. 

 A few other cases are figured in the diagrams in which only a 

 single segment may be involved. 



This phenomenon of anastomosis I have found about as common 

 in the small adults as in the larger, though Browne considers it as 

 quite rare in small specimens. I have also found it frequently 

 affecting the terminal portion of the adradial canals, especially in 

 those rather rare cases in which the rhopalium is adradial. 



The branching of the adradial canals has already been referred 

 to in a brief way. It is only necessary to again call attention to 

 the matter, and refer to several of the figures in which it is shown, 

 ^. ^.,Figs. 13, a, and 14, a. An interesting and unusual condition 

 is shown in Fig. 11, /, where the interradial system is wholly lack- 

 ing and the two adradials thus brought into contiguous relations. 



CYANEA AND DACTYLOMETRA. 



Several incidental references have been made in the preceding 

 pages to variations observed in ephyrae of Cyanea. It has long 

 been well known that Cyanea arctica is a remarkably variable 

 species, so much so that Professor Agassiz recognized some of 

 them as distinct species, and described as such Cyanea fulva, and 

 Cyanea versicolor. But the names have long since passed into the 

 limbo of synonomy, the forms so designated not having even a 

 varietal recognition. In the present instance, however, they may 



