194 CTENOPHOR.^. Part II. 



equally meagve, l)y Slaljljer and Modeer. The figure published by Perou is rather 

 indistinct; and it is impossiljlc to determine -with certainty whether the Aealej^li 

 he had before hiin when he named that genus jjclongs to the same type as the 

 two species afterwards referred to it Ijy Eschscholtz. That Peron himself did not 

 appreciate correctly its structural j^ecidiarities is plain, from the fact that he relerred 

 the genus Callianira to the Pteropods and not to the Acalephs. Eschsclioltz never 

 had an opportunity of examining a species of this genus, though it was he who 

 referred to it the other two nominal species now associated with the Callianira 

 of Peron. Judging from the figures adduced under the names of Callianira trijD- 

 loptera and C. hexagona, there can be no doubt that the genus Callianira belongs 

 to the Ctenophora^ Saccata>, since they exhibit two long lateral tentacles, occupying 

 the same position as those of Pleurobrachia ; and were not the descriptions unani- 

 mous in representing the rows of locomotive flappers as extending along prominent 

 riljs u])on the sides of the spherosome, I should not hesitate to refer the genus 

 Callianira to the same family as the genus Pleurobrachia : but since the surfiice 

 of Pleurobrachia is nearly even, and the locomotive flappers are never raised into 

 wing-like appendages, I am inclined to believe that when Callianira is observed 

 again it will be found to constitute the type of a distinct fauuly closely allied 

 to Pleuroltrachia, but chiefly distinguished by the prominent development of the 

 rows of motory cells Avhich underlie the vertical chj'miferous tuljes. That no 

 Callianira can have only six or four rows of locomotive flappers,^ as might be 

 inferred from their descriptions, is already plain from an inspection of the figures 

 of SlablK'r copied by Brugiere in the Encyclopedie Methodique. The descriptions 

 seem to have been made without remembering that the middle rows visible in 

 the figure must have been repeated on the opposite side. Should the structure 

 of these species, when examined again in the light of <-)ur modern knowledge of 

 the Acalephs, prove to constitute a family by themselves, the name of Callia- 

 NiRiD.E must l)e restricted to them. Should it on the contrary appear that they 

 cannot l)e separated from Pleurobrachia, which with its allied genera now consti- 

 tutes the family of Cj^dippida^, then this name must be suppressed, and the united 

 Cydippidos and Callianiridic retain the name of Callianirida^. 



Gegenltaur, perceiving the inappropriateness of uniting the genera Cestum, Cy- 

 dippe, and Callianira into one famil}-, has called the species included in the genus 



^ The (listiiictivf difleronops notiw<l by Escli- diftVronce among tliera, alreadj ackimwledged by 



^eholtz in the diagnoses of the siieeies of C'aUianira Eschscholtz, who, in tlie Isis for 182.J, p. 742, 



seem rather to indicate an inequahty in the <leveIo|i- adopts the genns ,So]iliia Per. for tlie Callianira 



rnent <if the sjiheromeres, than a diflerence in their di|il(iptera, by the side of the gi/nus C'aUianira 



nnmljer, and, therefore, prubaldj' mark a generic Lanil-. for the C. triploptera. 



