Chap. VI. 



TABULAR VIEW. 



169 



This genus, when better known, will probably be subdivided. 

 Gegenbaur has already pointed out marked differences in the 

 form of the radiating j^ouches, which may be considered as 

 generic. He has also indicated, for the first time, a most 

 important distinction between Cunina, on one side, and the 

 other genei'a of this family (in the mode of insertion of the 

 tentacles, in the radial prolongation or between the radiating 

 pouches), which Eschscholtz had simply considered as a generic 

 character, though it may lead to the further separation of 

 the two groups as distinct families. 



Eurybia Esch., 1829. This genus is a Cunina or Foveolia, with 

 four pouches and four tentacles. 

 E. exigua Esch., Acal., PI. 8, fig. 5. — Pacific Ocean, near the Equator 

 (Eschscholtz). 



Campanella DeBlainv., 18.34 (not Lesson). — ^ginopsis J. Miill., 1851, 

 LeucJc, Kdll, Gerjcnb. (not Brandt). — Charybdea Q. and G. 

 (p. p.). This genus is characterized b}^ its eight radiating 

 pouches, in which the genital organs are developed, and its 

 two tentacles arising from the sides of the umbrella in oppo- 

 site directions. The genus Campanella Less, is synonymous 

 with Melicertum. Saphenia and the bitentaculated Geryonidte 

 have only a remote analogy with this genus. 

 C. Capitulum Q. and G., Msc., DeBl. auct.' — Aeginopsis bitenta- 

 culata J. 3fiill. — Charybdea bidentaculata Q. and G., Zool. 

 Astr., Vol. IV. p. 295, Zooph., PI. 25, figs. 4 and d. — Less., 

 Ac, p. 265. — Amboina (Quoy and Gaimard). 



' DeBliiinvillc quotes Quoy and Gaimard for 

 Campanula Capitulum; but there is no species de- 

 scribed by them under that name. When it is 

 remembered, however, that DeBIainville used Quoy 

 and Gaimard's notes for his references, we should 

 not wonder at occasional discrepancies between their 

 works, nor be surprised that the nomenclature 

 of Quoy and Gaimard, in the Astrolabe, is not 

 always identical with that of DeBlainville's Acti- 

 nologie, as they have, now and then, themselves 

 altered the names which occurred in the manu- 

 script used by DeBIainville. It is, nevertheless, 

 much to be regretted that Quoy and Gaimard 



VOL. IV. 22 



should not refer to DeBIainville more frequently 

 in their final publication. This has led to a 

 difficulty respecting the synonymy of this species. 

 The genus Campanella, which Q. and G. had pro- 

 posed in their manuscript, but finally dropped, is 

 good, and the species was new at the time of its 

 publication by DeBIainville. The name Campa- 

 nella Capitulum must, therefore, be retained, with 

 the authority, Q. and G., even though, in the 

 work of Quoy and Gaimard, Zoologie de I'Astro- 

 labe, neither the generic nor the specific names, 

 said by DeBIainville to have been given by them 

 to this species, were retained for it. 



