1879.] PROF. J. R. GREENE ON A RARE MEDUSA. 795 



common Mediterranean species. The rude, scarcely recognizable, 

 figure is spoken of as "a very miserable representation" by Edward 

 Forbes l . 



Risso 2 , in 1826, gave a very imperfect account of the species of 

 Plancus, under the name proposed for it by Pe'ron. 



Milne-Edwards (1833) took the lead among modern naturalists in 

 adequately redescribing this singular acaleph, whose marginal bodies 

 were more fully analyzed by Gegenbaur in 1856. Gegenbaur again 

 directed attention to C. marsupialis in his systematic essay on the 

 Medusae, based chiefly on Mediterranean studies. Graffe(1858) 

 also described it, noticing more especially its marginal bodies and 

 bunches of gastric tentacles. Costa (1836) must be added to the list 

 of original observers of the same species. Kolliker (1866), using the 

 results of his own studies, briefly compared the minute structure of 

 its gelatinous disk with that of other Medusae. Finally (1878) 

 appeared the crowning work of Claus. 



Of the other Charybdeidce much less is known. Each species 

 named in the annexed list appears to have been seen by one observer 

 only. None is described in a mauner at all satisfactory, if we except 

 the two species of Fritz Miiller. 



Charybdea, Per. fy Le S. 3 



periphylla, Per. § Le S? Equatorial Atlantic. 



bicolor, Quoy §• Gaim. 4 Cape- Verd Islands. 



bitentaculata, Quoy § Gaim? ... Aniboina. 



campanella, Less. 9 African Seas. 



alata, Bei/naud 7 Atlantic Ocean. 



Tamoya, F. Mull. 8 



haplonema, F. Mull? Santa Catharina. 



quadrumana, F. Mull? Santa Catharina. 



Marsupialis, Less? 



flagellata, Less. 10 New Guinea. 



Bursarius, Less. 1 * 



cythereas, Less. 12 New Guinea. 



Thus Charybdeidce have been found along the western shores of 

 the equatorial Pacific and the adjacent parts of the Indian Ocean, in 



1 ' British Naked -eyed Medusae,' p. 91. The supposed copy {vide Eschscholtz) 

 of this figure by Bruguiere represented, according to Forbes, another species of 

 Medusa. 



2 Op. cit. (infra, p. 802). Little more than a record of the occurrence of this 

 species near Nice. 



8 Op. cit. p. 332 ; Milne-Edwards (Ouvier), pi. 55. fig. 2. 



* Op. cit. p. 293, and pi. 25. figs. 1-3. 



5 Op. cit. p. 295, and pi. 25. figs. 4, 5. 



6 Prodr. 23 ; Acalephes, p. 267, and pi. 6. fig. 6. 



7 Lesson, Cent. zool. p. 95, and pi. 33 ; Marsupialis alata, Prodr. 26 ; Aca- 

 lephes, p. 278. 



8 Op. cit. (1859), p. 3, and Taf. i., ii. 9 Prodr. 10; Acalephes, p. 268. 



10 Prodr. 27 ; Acalephes, p. 278. Not figured. 



11 Voy. de la Coquille, Zoophytes, p. 108 ; Prodr. 11 ; Acalephes, 278. 



la Coquille, Zoophytes, p. 108, and pi. 14. fig. 1 ; Acalephes, p. 279. " Beroe 

 gargantua, Less. Zool. Coq. pi. 15. fig. 1, seems to be only a large decayed 

 specimen of the same species " (Agassiz, Contr. vol. iv. p. 174). 



