MEDUSA. I. 21 



appear on the preservation. In most of tlie specimens examined by me cirri are completely absent; 

 but in all of the well-preserved specimens a greater or smaller number of cirri are present. In no case 

 I have been able to state the number of cirri. 



The Hydroid generation belongs to the genus Cuspidella. As to this point, see B r o w n e 1907, i)p. 463 ff. 



This medusa, fairly large and cotispicuon.s, widely distributed, and frequently occurring in great 

 numbers, has been known from early times, and has been described several times, usually very defici- 

 ently, unfortunately, and under many different names. It is, therefore, very difficult to give a reliable 

 list of synonyms. The confusion has been further increased thereby that several species, belonging to 

 quite other genera or families, have been included in the list.s, e.g. by Haeckel (1879), as demon- 

 strated by Browne {1896). Among other species, Thaninantias [Cosnietira] pilosella Forbes has frequently 

 been identified with ^'■Laodicc crticiata'\ and is even found under that name in Be dot: Histoire des 

 Hydroi'des'. Browne has refound the Cosnietira pilosella of Forbes and demonstrated, that it belongs 

 to quite another group of Leptomedusoe. 



If we want to state the correct name of the species, we must do awa\- with all descriptions, 

 older than 1851; they are all so vague, that the .species in question cannot be identified with any 

 probability at all. 



The generic name Laodicea has been established by Lesson (18431 for the '■'■Medusa cruciata" 

 Forskal, called by Lesson ''Laodicea crucigera"^ and this generic name has been conunonly used since 

 that time for the genus here dealt with. The first description of a Laodicea, sufficiently clear for 

 identification, is the description of '^Thaninantias undulatd''' Forbes and Goodsir 1851^ from the west- 

 coast of Scotland. When we admit that none of the forms previously described, which have later on been 

 referred to the genus Laodicea, may be identified with certainty, there can be no doubt that, according 

 to the rule of priority, the correct name of the British Laodicea must be Laodicea jaidulata Forbes and 

 Goodsir. The next question is, whether there is any reason, in this particular case, to abandon the 

 strict application of the nde, and, as Mayer (1910) prefers, "to retain an old and familiar name rather 

 than to reinstate an imfamiliar one such as L. undulata'\ In order to answer this question, we must 

 see, how the name of cruciala has been used in the subsequent period. 



The name Laodicea cruciata was assigned by A. Agassiz (in L. Agassiz i860 — 62, p. 350) to 

 Forskal's medusa, which was, in the same work, identified with T/taumantias mcditerranea Gegen- 

 bauer and joined together with the new species Laodicea calcarata, Z,. cellularia (= Thanma7ttias 

 cellularia Haeckel 1879, Halistaura cellularia Bigelow 1913), and Z. stanroglypha (an apocryphal species) 

 to form the genus Laodicea. The specific name cruciata has not been used at all during the subsequent 

 period until 1879, when Haeckel united several medusas from the European Atlantic coasts and the Medi- 

 terranean under the name of "Laodice cruciata". As demonstrated by Browne (1896 p. 482) there is only 



I In "Histoire des Hydroides" e^ periode (1891 a 1900), issued 191S, Bedot lias separated ''Laodicea cruciata" from 

 Cosnietira pilosella, but some of the synonyms, placed under the former, do not actually belong to that species. The •'Irene 

 viridiila" of Garstang 1S94 seems to be a real Eirene, with distinct stomachal peduncle and with marginal vesicles (according 

 to Garstang's description in the quoted paper, p. 215). — "Laodice cruciata" of Haddon iiSS6c), Garstang (1894), Herd- 

 man (1894c), Browne {1895, 1896c, and 1898a) should be referred to Cosmetira pilosella. 



= The paper was read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh on Jan. 20th and Febr. 3rd 1851 and printed in the 

 Transact. Vol. XX, which was completed in 1853. 



