4G8 Mr. E. T. Browne on the Medasce 



name were regarded as obsolete. In the first place, it is 

 imj)0ssible to identify the original Medusa crucicdaof Forskal, 

 as its description and figures are too indefinite. Iii the second 

 place, Hseckel has produced great confusion by putting under 

 the name of Laodice cruciata several species which clearly 

 belong to other genera. I have criticized in detail Hseckel's 

 synonyms in the Proc. Zool. Soc. (189G, p. 482), and it is 

 not necessary to do so again. There is only one genuine 

 Laodice amongst the lot, namely Thaumantias mediterranea, 

 Gegenbaur. 



Cosmetira salinarum, du Plessis, 1879, p. 39, pi. xii. 

 Laodice salinarum, Hasckel, 1880, p. 636. 



This species was found by du Plessis in brackish-water 

 ditches in a salt-marsh near Cette. Du Plessis says tiiat " it 

 is curious that it is a miniature copy of a much larger species, 

 Cosmetira jyunctataj which occurs in the sea near Cette." 

 Cosmetira punctata is a synonym of Laodice mediterranea. 

 The description given by du Plessis is rather vague, and the 

 photograph, which is the only figure, is too fuzzy to show any 

 details. From the description 1 rather think that the medusa 

 is more likely to be an ULindias or one of the Olindiadge. It 

 was found suspended by the long tentacles from the lower 

 surfaces of masses of alga?. This points to the tentacles 

 having adhesive disks. Ihe tentacles are provided with rings 

 of nematocysts, and between the tentacles at regular intervals 

 are some little reddish sacs, which have a pigment-spot and 

 some crystalline concretions. The sensory clubs of the 

 Laodiceidse are without otoliths or crystalline concretions. 

 There is no clear evidence that this medusa belongs to tiie 

 Laodiceida3, and it should be searched for again and properly 

 described. Maas (1905) has also expressed an opinion to the 

 same effect. 



Laodice cellularia, A. Agassiz, 1862, p. 350; id. 1865, p. 127, 

 figs. 195-196. 



Thaumantias cellularia, Hseckel, 1879, p. 129; Murbach and Shearer, 

 1803, p. 172, pi. xvii. fig. 2. 



Agassiz, in his original description of this species, was 

 doubtful whether it belonged to the genus Laodice, for the 

 examination of the tentacles could nut be made sufficiently 

 accurate to determine this point. Murbach and Shearer have 

 again found this medusa. They definitely state that specimens 

 preserved in formalin do not show ocelli or cirri. As nothing 



