22 MEDUS.E. I. 



one single name among Haeckel's 25 synonyms, which really refers to s. Laodt'cea, viz. T/iai/ntaniias 

 med/ierranea Gegenhaner. Before Ha eckel, accordingly, the specific name cruciata was very far from 

 being commonly used or "familiar", and Haeckel's list of synonyms made the confusion as complete 

 as ever. Indeed, I am not able to find a better wa\- out of the mess, than to release altogether the 

 name of cruciata and follow the rule of priority, using the name by which the species has first been 

 described in a manner which allows a recognition, viz. undiilata Forbes and Goodsir. This was proposed 

 by Browne in 1907, and the proposal was adopted by Vanhoffen in 1911 (p. 365). 



Then we come to the question of the mutual relation between the different species of the 

 Genus Laodicca. 



vSince new examinations of the medusse belonging to this group have been carried out in later 

 years (Browne 1907, Mayer 1910), it may be stated, that the-Mediterranean ^'•Thaumanttas ntcditeyraMed\ 

 Gegenbaur, the North-American-Atlantic Laodtcea calcarata A. Agassiz, and the Tropical-Atlantic 

 Laodice itlnthrix Haeckel are identical with the North-European Laodicea undulaia (Forbes and Good- 

 sir). Mayer is undoubtedly right, when he refers to the same species the Laodicea maranta Agassiz 

 and Mayer (from the Fiji Islands), a species which, according to the description (1899) is exactly like 

 a young midulata. L. indica Browne (from Ceylon) is very like L. nndnlata^ from which it is only 

 distinguished (according to Browne 1905b) "in having no spur at the base of the tentacles, in 

 having larger ocelli, and perhaps in colour and size", characters to which, as will be understood from 

 what is said above, we may hardly assign any specific importance. Cirri are present in L. ii/dica, 

 though only in small numbers. 



In 1899 A. Agassiz and Mayer described a small medusa from the Fiji Islands, Laodicca 

 fijiana\ the most characteristic features of this species are the lacking of cirri, the very small number of 

 cordyli, and the gonads which, in spite of the small size of the animal (6 mm), were provided with 

 "complex diverticulse". Tentacular spurs are not mentioned nor figured. — Ma as (1905, Siboga-Exped.) 

 describes a Laodicea from the Indian Archipelago and refers it to Laodicea Jijiana, though it is much 

 larger, being 20 mm wide; he is apt to suppose, however, that it belongs to a local variety, to which 

 he will apply the name of van indica. Browne (1907 p. 466) find.s, that there is so nmch difference 

 between the two forms, that it will be correct, in any case provisionally, to describe that medusa as 

 an independent species, which he calls Z. Maasii. As the most decisive difference Browne calls 

 attention to the fact, that basal spurs are present on the tentacles of L. Maasii^ whereas such are not 

 described \n Jijiana. Thi.s, however, does not contradict the supposition, t\\a.t L. fijian a maybe a young 

 stage of L. maasii (it was mentioned above that spurs are not developed in \oung individuals of L. 

 midulata from the northern seas). The length of the gonads in L. maasii is highly variable; Ma as writes 

 as follows (p. 26):" ... ich habe jiingere Exemplare gesehen, bei denen die Geschlechtsproducte bis an die 

 Peripherie reichten, und alte mit strotzenden Ovarien, die nur etwa die halbe Lange der Radiarcanale ein- 

 nahmen." The length of the gonads can, accordingly, have no great importance for specific distinction. The 

 structure of the gonads involves more difficulty. In /.. maasii the gonads are provided with simple lateral 

 extensions, whereas in L. Jijiana the proximal parts of the radial canals "exhibit complex diverticulse", 

 on which the gonads are situated. This is only a difference in degree, it is true, which has no decisive 

 importance; but, on the other liand, the specimens of L^. Jijiana, in any case the female individuals. 



