170 DISCOPHOR^. Pakt III. 



C. mediteiTaiiea A(/. — Aeginopsis mediterranea f/i MlilL, Arch. Anat., 

 1851, p. 272, PI. 11.— Zeuct, Arch. Naturg., 1856, p. 33, PI. 2, 

 figs. 8 and ^.— Gcffciib., Zeitsch. f. wiss. Zool., 1856, VIII. 

 p. 266. — Aeginopsis bitentaculata Kdll, Zeitsch. f. wiss. Zool., 

 1853, IV. p. 320. Not JEg. bituberculata as Leuck. quotes it. 

 — Messina (MUller, KoUiker, and Gegenbaur); Nhsa (Leuckart). 

 ..^ gin op sis Br., 1835 (not J. MUller). Characterized by its lobed 

 actinostome and four tentacles, each one alternating with four 

 radiating pouches. 



^g. Laurentii Br., Ac. St. Petersb., 1838, PI. 6, Less. — Laurent 

 Bay, Behring Sea (Mei'tens). 

 Aegina Esch., 1829. Actinostome simple. Four tentacles, each one 

 alternating with two radiating pouches which terminate in 

 a bilobed sac. As characterized, from ^gina citrina, the genus 

 -^gina is a very natural group ; but, besides ^gina rosea, 

 Eschscholtz has added to it a number of species described by 

 other writers, which do not belong here, although they belong- 

 to the same family, and probably to the genus Pegasia, to 

 which some jEquoreaj Per. and LeS. may also belong. 



JEgina citrina Lsch., Zool. Atl., PI. 5, fig. 2 ; Acal., PI. 11, fig. 4 ; 

 copied in DeBL, PI. 39, fig. I. — North Pacific, 34° N. Lat., 

 and 201° W. Long. (Eschscholtz). 



^gina rosea Esch., Acal., PI. 10, fig. 3, is likely to become the 

 type of a distinct genus, on accoimt of the numeric relations 

 of the tentacles and radi.ating pouches, and the form of the 

 latter. — North Pacific (Eschscholtz). — Mr. W. W. Wood has 

 forwarded to me a drawing of another species from the vicinity 

 of the Cape of Good Llope, on its Atlantic side, which belongs 

 to the same type as ./Eg. rosea. Its actinostome is tentacu- 

 lated ; that of JEg. rosea is not described. 

 Pegasia Per. and LeS., 1809, DeBl, Ze^s. — Aegina Eseh., 1829 (p. p.). 

 ' — Scyphis Less., 1843. — Pachysoma Koll., 1853. — iEgiueta 

 Gegenh., 1856. — Paryphasma Leuck., 1856. — Stenogaster Koll., 

 1853. 



There is no excuse for this multiplication of names, unless 

 it should hereafter be proved that there are structural dif- 

 ferences between the species here refeiTcd to, for Pegasia 

 Per. and LeS. is not only described in Ann. du Museum, Vol. 

 XIV., but Lesson and DeBlainville have also reproduced that 



