﻿96 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  NATIONAL 
  MUSEUM. 
  vol.44. 
  

  

  notches 
  into 
  two 
  or 
  three, 
  in 
  Fewkes's 
  figures 
  the 
  tentacular 
  lobe 
  is 
  

   merely 
  slightly 
  undulating 
  in 
  outline, 
  his 
  characterization 
  of 
  the 
  

   lobes 
  as 
  "indented, 
  incised, 
  or 
  scalloped," 
  evidently 
  referring 
  to 
  the 
  

   notches 
  separatmg 
  the 
  rhopalar 
  lappets 
  from 
  the 
  tentacular. 
  As 
  

   Fewkes's 
  figures 
  were 
  drawn 
  from 
  hfe, 
  and 
  are 
  evidently 
  carefully 
  

   made, 
  and 
  not 
  at 
  all 
  diagrammatic, 
  and 
  as 
  Verrill's 
  specimen 
  had 
  been 
  

   in 
  alcohol 
  upward 
  of 
  20 
  years 
  when 
  Mayer 
  examined 
  it, 
  it 
  is 
  likely 
  

   that 
  Fewkes's 
  representation 
  more 
  clearly 
  represents 
  the 
  normal 
  

   concUtion. 
  

  

  Within 
  recent 
  years 
  the 
  genus 
  has 
  been 
  recorded 
  from 
  the 
  Soutli 
  

   Atlantic 
  by 
  Browne 
  (1908) 
  as 
  ornata 
  and 
  from 
  Japan 
  and 
  the 
  Kurile 
  

   Islands 
  by 
  Kishinouye 
  (1910) 
  as 
  sicula. 
  In 
  Browne's 
  specimen 
  the 
  

   tentacular 
  lobes 
  were 
  not 
  subdivided, 
  but 
  merely 
  somewhat 
  wa\^ 
  in 
  

   outline, 
  and 
  so 
  are 
  the 
  specimens 
  in 
  the 
  present 
  collection. 
  In 
  Kish- 
  

   inouye's 
  material 
  they 
  were 
  entire. 
  To 
  summarize, 
  then, 
  specimens 
  

   with 
  entire 
  or 
  slightly 
  wavy 
  lappets 
  — 
  that 
  is, 
  all 
  the 
  recently 
  described 
  

   specimens 
  of 
  the 
  genus 
  — 
  are 
  known 
  from 
  the 
  Mediterranean, 
  the 
  Bay 
  

   of 
  Fundy, 
  the 
  South 
  Atlantic, 
  Japan, 
  the 
  Kurile 
  Islands, 
  while 
  the 
  

   present 
  collection 
  contains 
  two 
  of 
  this 
  type 
  from 
  Bering 
  Sea. 
  Pha- 
  

   ceUophoras 
  are 
  also 
  recorded 
  from 
  the 
  west 
  coast 
  of 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  

   by 
  A. 
  Agassiz 
  (1865) 
  and 
  Fewkes 
  (1889), 
  but 
  without 
  details 
  as 
  to 
  

   their 
  margins. 
  

  

  There 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  nothing 
  whatever 
  to 
  separate 
  Browne's 
  and 
  

   Kishinouye's 
  specimens 
  specifically 
  from 
  the 
  Mediterranean 
  sicula, 
  

   and 
  I 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  same 
  is 
  true 
  of 
  the 
  Eastport 
  form, 
  ornata, 
  for 
  

   though 
  Mayer's 
  figure 
  (1910) 
  shows 
  the 
  mouth 
  arms 
  SiS 
  Aurelia-like, 
  

   he 
  says 
  in 
  his 
  characterization 
  of 
  the 
  species 
  that 
  they 
  are 
  like 
  those 
  

   of 
  duhia 
  — 
  that 
  is, 
  Cyanea-\ike 
  — 
  while 
  in 
  Fewkes's 
  figure 
  from 
  life 
  

   they 
  are 
  large, 
  curtain-like, 
  just 
  as 
  in 
  sicula. 
  The 
  differences 
  in 
  the 
  

   number 
  of 
  canals 
  in 
  the 
  various 
  recorded 
  specimens 
  also 
  suggest 
  

   nothing 
  more 
  than 
  geographic 
  varieties, 
  if 
  that. 
  My 
  own 
  studies 
  

   show 
  that 
  a 
  little 
  rough 
  treatment 
  is 
  all 
  that 
  is 
  needed 
  to 
  make 
  the 
  

   lappets 
  split, 
  for 
  the 
  gelatinous 
  substance 
  is 
  very 
  thin 
  at 
  the 
  margin, 
  

   and 
  when 
  this 
  happens 
  it 
  might 
  easily 
  be 
  mistaken 
  for 
  the 
  normal 
  

   condition, 
  which 
  suggests 
  that 
  no 
  line 
  can 
  be 
  drawn 
  between 
  Pha- 
  

   cellophoras 
  with 
  entire 
  and 
  those 
  with 
  subdivided 
  tentacular 
  lobes. 
  

   There 
  is 
  nothing 
  to 
  show 
  that 
  ambigua, 
  sicula 
  and 
  ornata 
  are 
  not 
  

   all 
  one 
  species. 
  The 
  case 
  of 
  camtschatica 
  is 
  not 
  clear, 
  because 
  its 
  

   marginal 
  sculpture 
  is 
  so 
  peculiar, 
  

  

  PHACELLOPHORA 
  AMBIGUA 
  (Brandt). 
  

   Plate 
  4, 
  fig. 
  10; 
  plate 
  5, 
  fig. 
  5. 
  

   Haccaedecomma 
  ambiguum 
  Brandt, 
  1838, 
  p. 
  380, 
  pis. 
  27, 
  28.— 
  A. 
  Agassiz, 
  1865, 
  

  

  p. 
  43. 
  

   CalUnema 
  ornata 
  Verrill, 
  1869, 
  p. 
  117.— 
  Fewkes, 
  1888, 
  p. 
  235, 
  pi. 
  6, 
  fig. 
  1-4. 
  

   PhacellophoraomataB.AECKEL, 
  1880, 
  p. 
  643.— 
  Hargitt, 
  1904, 
  p. 
  68.— 
  Vanhoffen, 
  

  

  1906, 
  p. 
  59.— 
  Brownb, 
  1908, 
  p. 
  247, 
  pi. 
  2, 
  fig. 
  3, 
  4.— 
  Mayer, 
  1910, 
  p. 
  617. 
  

   Phacellophora 
  ambigua 
  Haeckel, 
  1880, 
  p. 
  550.— 
  Vanhoffen, 
  1906, 
  p. 
  58.— 
  

   Mayer, 
  1910, 
  p. 
  615. 
  

  

  