﻿NO. 
  1946. 
  PACIFIC 
  MEDUSAE 
  AND 
  SIPHONOPHORAE—BIOELOW. 
  61 
  

  

  secondary 
  tentacles 
  may 
  well 
  have 
  been 
  lost 
  in 
  his 
  specimen, 
  or 
  he 
  

   may 
  have 
  mistaken 
  them 
  for 
  otocysts. 
  

  

  As 
  to 
  Haeckel's 
  Cunoctona, 
  I 
  must 
  point 
  out 
  that 
  if 
  we 
  are 
  to 
  

   unite 
  it 
  with 
  Aeginura 
  we 
  must 
  suppose 
  that 
  its 
  otoporpae, 
  which 
  

   he 
  shows 
  so 
  clearly, 
  were 
  imaginary. 
  And 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  whether 
  

   its 
  gastric 
  pouches 
  were 
  actually 
  of 
  the 
  bifid, 
  Aeginid 
  type, 
  for 
  

   though 
  they 
  are 
  so 
  shown 
  in 
  the 
  side 
  view 
  (Haeckel, 
  1879, 
  pi. 
  20, 
  

   fig. 
  2), 
  in 
  the 
  oral 
  view 
  (1879, 
  pi. 
  20, 
  fig. 
  1), 
  which 
  is 
  much 
  the 
  more 
  

   detailed, 
  they 
  are 
  hardly 
  notched 
  at 
  all 
  in 
  the 
  perradii, 
  that 
  is, 
  they 
  are 
  

   more 
  nearly 
  of 
  the 
  Gunina 
  type. 
  

  

  The 
  modern 
  Aeginuras 
  are 
  grimaldii 
  and 
  weberi 
  of 
  Maas, 
  and 
  

   grimaldi 
  var. 
  munda, 
  guinensis, 
  and 
  ohscura 
  described 
  as 
  new 
  by 
  

   Vanlioffen 
  from 
  the 
  collections 
  of 
  the 
  Valdivia. 
  I 
  have 
  already 
  

   given 
  my 
  reasons 
  (1909(2) 
  for 
  uniting 
  the 
  first 
  two, 
  as 
  does 
  Mayer 
  

   also 
  (1910), 
  and 
  for 
  calling 
  the 
  eastern 
  Pacific 
  specimens 
  grimaldii. 
  

   Vanhoffen's 
  species 
  are 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  secondary 
  tentacles 
  

   and 
  on 
  slight 
  differences 
  in 
  color. 
  But 
  the 
  present 
  series 
  shows 
  that 
  

   the 
  first 
  of 
  these 
  characters 
  is 
  too 
  variable, 
  even 
  from 
  octant 
  to 
  

   octant 
  of 
  a 
  given 
  individual, 
  to 
  be 
  of 
  any 
  value 
  in 
  classification, 
  at 
  

   least 
  within 
  the 
  narrow 
  limits 
  laid 
  down 
  by 
  Vanlioffen; 
  and 
  it 
  also 
  

   affords 
  evidence 
  that 
  the 
  second 
  is 
  of 
  no 
  greater 
  importance. 
  

  

  All 
  of 
  these 
  forms 
  are 
  therefore 
  united 
  here 
  as 
  grimaldii. 
  

  

  AEGINURA 
  GRIMALDII 
  Maas. 
  

  

  Aeginura 
  grimaldii 
  Maas, 
  19046, 
  p. 
  38, 
  pi. 
  3, 
  fig. 
  19-28.— 
  Bigelow, 
  1909a, 
  p. 
  80, 
  

  

  pi. 
  9, 
  fig. 
  4.— 
  Mayer, 
  1910, 
  p. 
  470. 
  

   Aeginura 
  weberi 
  Maas. 
  1905, 
  p. 
  77. 
  

  

  Cunoctona 
  grimaldi, 
  var. 
  munda 
  Vanhoffen, 
  1908, 
  p. 
  53, 
  pi. 
  2, 
  fig. 
  6. 
  

   Ounoctona 
  guinensis 
  Vanhoffen, 
  1908* 
  p. 
  53, 
  pi. 
  3, 
  fig. 
  29. 
  

   Cunoctona 
  ohscura 
  Vanhoffen, 
  'l908, 
  p. 
  52, 
  pi. 
  2, 
  fig. 
  7; 
  pi. 
  3, 
  figs. 
  25-28, 
  30. 
  

  

  Station 
  4764, 
  1130-0 
  fathoms; 
  3 
  specimens, 
  26, 
  27, 
  and 
  30 
  mm. 
  

   in 
  diameter. 
  

  

  Station 
  4766, 
  300-0 
  fathoms; 
  1 
  specimen, 
  32 
  mm. 
  in 
  diameter. 
  

  

  Station 
  4768, 
  764-0 
  fathoms; 
  1 
  specimen, 
  20 
  mm. 
  in 
  diameter. 
  

  

  Station 
  4780, 
  1046-0 
  fathoms; 
  7 
  specimens, 
  20-30 
  mm. 
  in 
  diam- 
  

   eter, 
  fragmentary. 
  

  

  Station 
  4953, 
  1350-0 
  fathoms; 
  1 
  specimen, 
  15 
  mm. 
  in 
  diameter. 
  

  

  Station 
  5058, 
  300-0 
  fathoms; 
  1 
  specimen, 
  22 
  mm. 
  in 
  diameter. 
  

  

  Station 
  5084, 
  300-0 
  fathoms; 
  1 
  specimen, 
  15 
  mm. 
  in 
  diameter; 
  

   fragmentary. 
  

  

  In 
  their 
  general 
  organization 
  these 
  specimens 
  agree 
  so 
  well 
  with 
  

   Maas's 
  (1905) 
  excellent 
  account 
  of 
  the 
  Sihoga 
  material, 
  and 
  with 
  the 
  

   eastern 
  Pacific 
  series 
  (1909a, 
  p. 
  80) 
  that 
  an 
  extended 
  account 
  is 
  

   unnecessary. 
  The 
  most 
  important 
  point 
  which 
  they 
  illustrate 
  is 
  the 
  

   futility 
  of 
  trying 
  to 
  base 
  several 
  species 
  on 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  secondary 
  

   tentacles 
  per 
  octant. 
  The 
  largest 
  example 
  is 
  in 
  good 
  condition, 
  and 
  

  

  