Chap. VI. TABULAR VIEW. 155 



Cassiopea Per. and LeS. — Polycladodes Br. 



C. Andromeda Esch. — Cassiopea Andromeda Tiksius, in Act. Nov. 

 Ac. Nat. Cur., Vol. XV. Pis. 69 and 70; copied by Milne-Ed- 

 wards in Cuvier's Regne animal, pi. 51, f. 1. — Medusa Andro- 

 meda Forsk. — Cassiopea Forskalea Per. and LeS. — Bed Sea 

 (Forskal and Ehrenberg) ; 3fauri(ius (Peron and LeSueur) ; 

 Sumatra (Tilesius). It would be very important to compare 

 anew specimens from these different localities. 



Crossostoma Ag. See p. 154. 



C. frondosa Ag. — Cassiopea frondosa Tiles., Act. Nov. Nat. Cur., 

 Vol. XV. PI. 72. — Not Cassiopea frondosa Link., which is a 

 Polyclonia ! — Macao and Canton (Tilesius) ; liadack Islands 

 (Chamisso). 



Storaaster Agass. See p. 154. 



S. canariensis Ag. — Cassiopea canariensis Tiles., Act. Nov. Nat. Cur., 

 Vol. XV. PI. 73. — Atlantic Ocean : Canary Islands (Tilesius). 



Holigocladodes Br. 



H. lunulatus Ag. — Urtica marina octopedalis Borlase, Nat. Hist. 

 Cornw., p. 258, PI. 25, figs. 16 and 17. — Medusa lunulata 

 Penn. — Cassiopea Borlase Per. and LeS. — Cassiopea lunulata 

 Flem., Esch. — Cassiopea rhizostomoidea Tiles., Nov. Act. xv. 

 text, p. 273. — Cassiopea anglica Tiles., lb. pi. 71. — British 

 Channel (Borlase, in 1758, and Tilesius). 

 4th Family. Cepheid^ Ag. 



The genus Cephea, as characterized by Per. and LeS., con- 

 tains all the members of this family then known. They 

 are RhizostomeaB whose short arms are very complicated, 

 polychotomous, with intervening long cirrhi. They differ only 

 morphologically from Rhizostoma proper: the four arms divid- 

 ing soon into eight branches, the ramifications of which are 

 so clustered as to form terminal bunches, with intervening 

 cotyles or pedunculated clusters of lasso-ceUs, and terminate 

 in slender, long cirrhi, varying in number. 



Our knowledge of these Medusse has not made one step 

 since Forskal, in whose " Descriptiones Animalium, &c.," two 

 species are described and figured ; but by a mistake of his 

 editor, C. Niebuhr, the figures of Forskal are erroneously 

 referred in the explanation of the plates, the description of 

 Medusa octostyla applying to PI. 29, and that of Medusa 



