Chap. II. NOMENCLATURE OF AURELIA. 



79 



through Mihie-Eclwards, whilst the German naturalists, taking Eschscholtz as their 

 guide, left many genera of Peron and LeSueur unnoticed, which, as we shall see 

 presently, ought to have been retained, and described them anew. The nomen- 

 clature of Eschscholtz himself is not entirely unobjectionable, and it is a question 

 whether he was justified in retaining, in 1829, the name Medusa, in which all 

 Discophorje, and even other Acalephs, had been mixed up, as a distinct genus for 

 the common Medusa aurita of Europe, when, in 1809, Peron and LeSueur had 

 already shown, that that species should be considered as the type of a distinct 

 genus, to which they gave the name of Aurelia, which is exactly synonymous with 

 Eschscholtz's Medusa. Though, as a question of principle, I am satisfied that generic 

 names ought not to be discarded, when a better knowledge of the species referred 

 to them shows the necessity of further divisions, I think that such groups as 

 the genus Medusa of Linnajus, which includes a whole class of animals, can hardly 

 claim a restoration after a quarter of a century; especially when that name is 

 needed to designate the adult condition of Acalephs generally. I shall, therefore, 

 give the preference to Peron and LeSueur's name for our Aurelia, and hereafter 

 employ the word Medusa, as I have those of Scyphostoma, Strobila, and Ephyra, 

 to designate one stage of growth of these animals. The genera distinguished by 

 Peron and LeSueur as Ocyroe, Evagora, and those mentioned under the names of 

 Claustra and Biblis, by Lesson, being founded only on mutilations of true Aureliaj, 

 can have no claim to recognition; and the fact that, owing to mistaken estimations 

 of their affinities, some species of the same genus have been referred to the o-enera 

 Cyanea, Ehizostoma, and Orythia, which belong really to other families, justifies us 

 in setting aside, for the present, the consideration of the true affinities of the last 

 genera. There remains, therefore, only one doubtful point respecting the nomen- 

 clature of Aurelia, namely, whether Diplocraspedon of Brandt differs generically from 

 it or not; for Monocraspedon of Brandt is unquestionably identical with Aurelia 

 of Pdron and LeSueur. It is equally unquestionable, that Macrostoma of Lesson 

 is synonymous with Biblis, the latter name having been substituted for the former, 

 which was already preocupied. Ocyroe, of Peron and LeSueur, without being ob- 

 jectionable on that ground, has an homonym among the Ctenophoraj. 



