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



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

 impossible to identify the original Medusa cniciataof Forskal, 

 as its description and figures are too indefinite. Li\ the second 

 place, Hajckel 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 Hjeckel'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 Tkaumantias mediterranea, 

 Gegenbaur. 



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

 Laodice salinarum, Ilseckel, 1880, p. 636. 



This species was found by du Plessis in brackish-water 

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

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

 Cosmetira 2^'^f^cf(^ii(^) which occurs in the sea near Cette." 

 Cosmetira punctata is a synonym of Laodice medi/erranea. 

 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 OLindias or one of the Olindiadre. It 

 Avas found suspended by the long tentacles from the lower 

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

 having adhesive disks. The 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 

 LaodiceidtB are without otoliths or crystalline concretions. 

 There is no clear evidence that this medusa belongs to the 

 Laodiceidaj, 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. 



Thaumantids cellularia, Hfeckel, 1879, p. ]29; Murbacli and Shearer, 

 1803, p. 172, pi. xvii. tig. 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 not 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 



