g CTENOPHORA. 



Bolina in/undibuhim Martens. Chun. Ctenophoren d. Plankton-Exped. 1898. p. 22. 

 _ _ (O. F. Miiller). F. Romer. Ctenophoren. Fauna arctica. III. 1903. p. 78. 



_ — (Fabricius). Vanhoffen. Ctenophoren. Nordisches Plankton. 1903. p. 5. 



— scpicutrionalis MevtQus. Vanhoffen. Die gronlandischen Ctenophoren. Bibl. Zool. VIII. 1895. p. 19. 



— in/tmdibuhim Marttns. F. Moser. J apanische Ctenophoren. (Beitr. z. Naturg. Ostasiens, herausg. 



V. Doflein). 1908. p. 48. 



Regarding the synonyniy of this .species I would first point out that the author of tlie name 

 infundibuhun is O. Fr. Miiller, as rightly stated by Romer (Op. cit), but not Fabricius, and still 

 less Martens, who did not mention this form by any other name than the "Springbrunner Rotzfisch". 

 This was translated by O. Fr. Miiller, in his "Prodromus Zoologise Danicse", into ".5dr^(7«? /'«/z<«<//(^?i!/«;«"/ 

 this is correctly given by Chun in his Monograph (p. 294), but in his "Ctenophoren d. Plankton-Ex- 

 pedition" (p. 13) he says that "Fabricius iibersetzte diese Bezei«hnung mit Bcroc infundibuhun" , and 

 this latter incorrect statement is repeated by Moser (Japanische Ctenophoren, p. 52). 



The Cydippe (juadricosfafa of Sars is ranged by Moser (Ctenophoren d. deutschen vSiidpolar- 

 Exped. p. 163) among the quite uncertain .species. It was pointed out already by Mc. Crady') that it 

 probably represents only the young of Bolina in/undibulum {Mncmia iiorvegica M. Sars), which interpre- 

 tation was adopted by A. Agassiz (North American Acalephse; p. 13) and by Chun (Monograph, 

 p. 125). No arguments are given by Moser against this interiDretation of Cydippe quadricostata, and 

 it seems, indeed, indisputable. No other Ctenophores occur in Norwegian seas, or upon the whole in 

 the North Atlantic, to which it could be referred. It is true, Auri villius^) regards it as identical 

 with Horniiphora plmnosa; but it is by no means a sure fact that Hormiphora plumosa occurs in the 

 North European Seas (comp. below). There are also no morphological reasons for referring it to any 

 other form than Bolina in/undibulum. 



That the species mentioned l)y M'Intosh (Op. cit.) as Lcsiintria vitrca is really Bolina in/un- 

 dibulum cannot be doubted, as was rightly pointed out by Vanhoffen (Gronlandische Ctenophoren, 

 p. 19). Also Evans & Ashworth (Op. cit. p. 310) appear to be of tliis opinion. 



Concerning Bolina alata Agass. I quite agree with Moser that it cannot be distinguished from 

 B. in/undibuluvi. The same is, I think, the case with Bolina microplera A. Ag. In the description of 

 this form (loc. cit.) Agassiz points out as one of its specific characters that "the lateral lobes are 

 very short, with complicated windings of the long ambulacral tubes". This might perhaps seem to 

 indicate that it is really a separate species; but as I have found a rather considerable variation in this 

 regard in the specimens of Bolina ir/undibuhim observed by me during a stay at the Biological station 

 of Trondhjem last summer (191 1), I do not think this a feature of sufficient importance for maintaining 

 B. microplera as a separate species — tlie more so as no figures are given of it. The question can 

 perhaps not be regarded as definitely settled at present; in any case careful studies of living material 

 of this as well as of the other American species, Bolina vitrea L. Agass., are very desirable. The beautiful 



■) John Mc. Crady. On the development of two Species of Ctenophora, found in Charleston Harbor. (Proc. ElHot 

 See. Nat. History. Charleston S. C. 1857. p. 8). 



2) C. W. S. Aurivillius. Vergleichende thiergeographische Untersuchungen fiber die Plankton-Fauna des Skage- 

 raks in den Jahren 1893 - 1S97. Kgl. Sveuska Vet. Akad. Handlingar. Bd. 30 No. 3. 1S98. p. 27. 



