412 MEMOIRS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 



this review aud a survey of all available literature it appears that NoctilHCd 

 may be found in the older literature under the following generic names: 

 Nereis (?), Medusa, Mammaria, Gleha, Slabheyia. and Phj/seniafiuni, prior to 

 Lamarck's publication of Suriray's Xoetih(ea in 1816. All figures and descrip- 

 tions prior to Slabber's (1771, fide Ehrenberg, 1834, for date) account of his 

 ''Medusa marina" (his plate 8) are so imperfect as not to be recognizable with 

 certaintv as Xorfiluea. Slal^ber's nomenclature is clearly not intentionally 

 binomial. His figure is recognizable as Xoctiluca. Oken (1815) gave it the 

 generic name Slahheria, but with the rejection of SJal)})eria as doubtfully ten- 

 able Nociiluea comes next as claimant for priority, and may be accepted even 

 thoiigh some extremist might hold that Linnaeus's use of Xoetilaca niarijia in 

 Ed. 10 (1758) of his Sjjstewa Xafnrae as a s^Tioimn in binomial form of his 

 Nereis noetiluea (annelid), establishes Xoctiluca as a genus. Publication of 

 the name in the later edition (1787-1790) of his Amoenitates Academicae, in 

 which he republishes Adler's (1752) paper on ^^ Xoctiluca marina''' in which 

 these words are used as a title and not as a binomial name of the annelid worm 

 descriljed in the paper, might also be used in support of the preoccupation of 

 Xoctiluca Suriray by Adler's name. We reject this inter]3retation since Adler's 

 use of the words in binomial form was not an intentional binomial naming of 

 the worm. 



The first valid specific name appears to be Macartney's Medusa sciutilla)is, 

 publislied in the well known Transactious of the Royal Societi/ of London 

 (1810). Its priority was recognized by Ehrenberg (1834) and later by Mobius 

 (1861). The date of Macartney's paper is incorrectly stated in Carus and 

 Engelmann's Bihliotheca Zoologica (1861, vol. 1. p. 294) as 1820. Macartney's 

 account and figures are sufficiently comx^lete to afford a recognition of the 

 organism. The tentacle is suggested, though not clearly described, and is 

 figured faintly (his pi. 2, fig. 12). 



Later Ehrenberg (1834) decided, on grounds not clearly stated, that the 

 name should be Mannnaria scintillans. The genus Mammaria, founded by 0. F. 

 Miiller in 1776 for imperfectly described eoelenterates, is so inadequately known 

 as to be unrecognizable. It is evident that Midler's (1776) citation of "N. act. 

 N. Curios, vol. 4" is incorrect. No previous publication of Mannnaria can he 

 located in the memoirs cited by him. The allocation of Noetiluea therein is with- 

 out any satisfactory basis of discussion or revision of the genus by Ehrenlierg. 

 We reject his allocation as untenable. 



In the course of his discussion Ehrenberg sometimes (1834, p. 559) loosely 

 used the phrase "Noetiluea marina" in italicized binomial form simulating a 

 generic-s])ecific combination of names, without, aj)parently, intending to give 

 it binomial status. 



Noetiluea hanksii var. of Baird (1830, fig. lOOrt) is a crustacean Noetiluea 

 and was cited by Ehrenberg (1834, p. 510) as Noetiluea Ixinksii? var. 



Busch (1851) based his species of A^. punctata upon the punctate appearance 

 which he observed, l)ut this is not a species character. 



