275 
name Medusa equorea. In 1809 Peron and Lesueur published in the 
‘Annales du Muséum d@’ Histoire Naturelle,’ vol. xiv., their important 
classification and synopsis of all known Medusze. In that paper, ex- 
cellent though it be, they increase the confusion, by giving the name 
of Hquorea atlantica to Loefling’s animal, 4g. danica to Miller’s, 
Aq. grenlandica to that of Fabricius, Zq. Forskalea to that of For- 
skal, and Zy. stauroglypha to a new species of their own, probably 
identical with all the others. In 1829 Eschscholtz, in his ‘System 
der Acalephen,’ attempted to rectify this confusion, by rejecting all 
these names excepting Hq. Forskalina, that alone having been sufii- 
ciently described. In 1843 Lesson published his History of Acale- 
phee in the ‘Nouvelles Suites 4 Buffon,’ and, to make confusion worse 
confounded, rejected all rectifications and restored all the names and 
imperfectly noticed individuals to full specific rank. 
After attentively considering the notices more or less perfect that 
the various older observers have given, of what they call Medusa 
@quorea, I am led to the belief that in most instances one species, 
not several, was met with, and that the creature I now describe and 
figure as British is identical with the Medusa equorea of Loefling, 
Forskal and Miiller. Since Forskal alone described and figured it in 
a comprehensible manner, the name Aquorea Forskalea, proposed by 
Peron, is peculiarly appropriate, the more so since that of Medusa 
patina of Modeer was proposed under a mistake. Forskal expressly 
states that his species is common to the North Atlantic and the Medi- 
terranean, and that it inhabits the Danish seas, where it is called 
“ Vandmand,” that is, Waterman. 
It remains to be seen whether our species is related to the Hquo- 
rea violacea of Milne-Edwards, well described and beautifully figured 
in the 16th volume of the 2nd series of the ‘ Annales des Sciences 
Naturelles,’ and observed by that eminent naturalist in the Mediter- 
ranean. From an examination of its anatomy he first showed the 
serious error committed by Eschscholtz in considering the #quoride 
as cryptocarpous. I am inclined to agree with Milne-Edwards in 
considering his species distinct from that of Forskal. The genital 
glands are not prolonged nearly so close to the margin; the lips of 
the stomach are not furbelowed ; the bases of the tentacles are not 
bulbous, and originate regularly between the gastro-vascular canals. 
There were no eyes observed by the distinguished zoologist just 
quoted in the species he examined. In ours the eyes are evident, 
and a determination of their position and appearance is of conse- 
quence, since they confirm the affinity of Hquorea with the Naked- 
eyed Medusze, whilst at the same time, in the little appendage or 
rudimentary lid projecting above them, they indicate an approach to 
the Steganophthalmatous type, such as is consistent with the general 
high organization and aspect of the Zquorea when compared with 
other Gymnophthalmatous forms. 
_ It is interesting to remark that the Hquorea ciliata of Eschscholtz 
is a North Pacific species, beautifully representing, yet quite distinct 
from, quorea Forskalea. 
