[37] 



MEDUSA FROM THE GULF STREAM. 



963 



SIPHONOPHORA Eschscholtz, 1829. 



Calycophor^ (Calycophorid^e Leuckart, 1854). 



The Gulf Stream is uiKloubtedlj" tbe home of a number of Calyco- 

 phores which have uever been described. The following are known 

 from this locality : Diphyes is represented by two si)ecies, as far as 

 known. One of these is D, formosa, Few., while the other species is 

 very close to the Mediterranean, D. acuminata, Leuck. A Galeolarla 

 very similar to G. aurantiaca was taken by meat Tortugas, Florida, and 

 there is everj" probability that this genus is likewise found in our lati- 

 tudes. It has been recorded from Greenland by Leuckart. I have seen 

 a single Ahyla from the Gulf Stream which closely recalls the species 

 pentagona from Nice. A Mugguva (Chun) is common at Key West, 

 Fla. Pray a* is found at Tortugas, and possibly off Cape Hatteras, 

 North Carolina. 



Of monogastric Calycophores, I regard the genus Biplophysa taken 

 by me at Newport, as a Gulf-Stream medusa. In the same category 

 also falls Eudoxia Lessonii] Hux. Gleha hippopns, Forsk., has been 

 found in several localities in the Gulf Stream. A large specimen of Gleha, 

 which has certain differences from the Mediterranean species, was cap- 

 tured in 1883 by the Albatross. 



Gleba hippopus, Forskal. 



Specimens examined. 



The second of these specimens is larger than those which I have found 

 in the Mediterranean, but I can detect no specific differences between 

 them. 



* When I first mentioned this genus from Florida in a popular account of the Caly- 

 cophores {Amer. Nat., Aug., 18S3), I did not describe it as a new species, hut found, to 

 my astonishment, when the article was printed, that the Praya, which I have no 

 doubt is a new species, bears the name Fraya Maino in my list. 



tThe Diphyes puiiilla, McCr., tind Eudoxia alala, McCr., recorded by McCrady from 

 Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, are probably Gulf-Stream Calycophores. I am 

 not able to tell from McCrady's description whether his E. alaia is the same as E. 

 Lessonii, Huxley, or not. His Diphyes pusilla cannot be recognized, for he gives no 

 specific description. He suggests the name, and says (Gymophthalmata of Charles- 

 ton Harbor, p. 72), "I therefore defer the description of this species, which may per- 

 haps properly be called D. pmilla to a future time." I am not aware that he ever 

 described it more in detail, and probably the uj^me ought to disappear from oup faupal 

 lists, 



