4(1 



liFLLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



Bougainvillia superciliaris L. Agassiz. Text cut. 



Hippocrau superciliaria L Agassiz, Memoirs American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. Ill, 2d series. 1849, p. 250 



stimpson, Marine Invertebrates of Grand Manan,1853, p. 11, in Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. VI 



Bougainvillia superciliaris L. Agassiz, Contributions to Natural History United States. Vol. IV, 1862, p. 289 and 344. A. 



Agassiz, North American Acalephse, 1865, p. 153. 

 Hippocrene superciliaris Haeckel, System der Medusen, 1879, p. 92. 



In general form and characteristics very similar to the 

 preceding species, but of larger size and differing somewhat 

 in shape ami in the complexity of the oral tentacles as well 

 as the disposition of the gonads. The marginal tentacles 

 are also tin ire numerous and of greater length. The manu- 

 brium is shorter and broader, and the gonads are crowded 

 about its base instead of near the oral end, as in the 

 former species. Size from 8 to 12 mm. in diameter in 

 maturity. 



( blors. — Less bright than in preceding species; sensory 

 pads dull yellowish to orange, ocelli black, manubrium 

 similarly colored, reddish orange distally. 



DiMribution. — Similar to that of preceding, but often 

 taken from greater depths and farther offshore. June to 

 September. 



Bougainvillia gibbsi Mayer. 



Bougainvillia gibbsi Mayer, Bulletin Museum Comparative Zoology, 

 Vol. XXXVII, 1900, p. 5. 



/:::; ;■;/;/: tiVta superciliaris 



Medusa very similar to II. carolinensis, distinguished 

 by Mayer by the relatively greater height of bell and by 

 the shorter and broader manubrium. Moreover, the size is smaller, the marginal tentacles fewer in 

 number, and the oral tentacles less complex. 



Mayer records its occurrence at Newport, from July to October. He gives ample description in 

 the article cited. 



WILLI A Forbes (1848). 



Willsia Forbes, British Naked-eyed Medusa-, 1848, p. 19. 



Willia L. Agassiz, Contributions to Natural History of trie United states. Vol. IV, 1862, p. 346. 



Willia ornata McCrady, PI. I. fig. 5. 



Willsia ornata McCrady, Proceedings Elliott Society of Natural History. Vol. I. 1857, p. 149. 



Willia ornata A. Agassiz, North American Aealephffi, 1865, p. 171. 



Willia gemmifera Fewkes, Bulletin Museum Comparative Zoology, Vol. IX. lss2. p. 299. 



Dyscannota dysdiplt ura Haeckel, System der Medusen, 1879, p. 152. 



WUletta ornata Haeckel. System der Medusen, 1879, p. 157. 



Body of medusa rather low, bell-shaped, somewhat conical above, about twice as broad as high, and 

 with rather firm walls. Eadial canals only 4 at birth, later each of these branches as shown in the 

 figure, finally resulting in from 12 to 16 terminal canals, which communicate with that of the margin. 

 Tentacles likewise but 4 at birth, but increasing in number with the increase of radial canals, so that 

 finally there may be 12 or more at maturity. Between the terminal branches of the canals are irregu- 

 lar lines of nematocysts, which pass upward on the outer surface of the bell for short distances. 

 Manubrium well developed, mouth with 4 everted lobes. Gonads form prominent masses mi the base 

 of tin- manubrium, but never extend outward upon the radial canals. ( ratogeny wholly unknown. 



dolor. — Ocelli reddish brown, gonads and manubrium pale greenish. 



Distribution. — More or less common at irregular intervals. Occasionally taken in numbers in the 

 Eel Pond and in the tow of the harbor. 



Haeckel, in the System der .Medusen (vide supra), has placed this form among the cannotid Lep- 

 tomedusse, which seems to me to bo wholly without warrant in so far as its more fundamental charac- 



