IOO CHAS. W. HARGITT. 



in its vegetative phases, no sexual organs appearing. Further- 

 more, if these be present when brought to the aquarium they 

 soon show signs of degeneration, and later disappear. 



Corynitis. — This genus was instituted by McCrady for a 

 hydroid and medusa described by him from Charleston Harbor 

 [Proc. Elliott Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. I., p. 131), and named in 

 honor of Professor Agassiz Corynitis agassizii. Notwithstanding 

 the fairly full description, especially of the medusa, the latter 

 illustrated by good figures, a most remarkable confusion has 

 crept into the literature in reference to the supposed affinities of 

 the species. From material which has come into my possession 

 within recent years, and from facts gathered therefrom it now 

 seems possible to clear up the matter once for all. 



About the time that McCrady described the above named 

 species Agassiz also described a new hydroid which he designated 

 as Halocharis spiralis (Cont. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV., p. 239). For 

 some unaccountable reason he subsequently came to regard this 

 species as identical with McCrady's Corynitis, and on page 340 

 gives priority to the latter name, ranking Halocharis as a 

 synonym. That this was not simply a clerical error is evident 

 in that on page 344 he recognizes McCrady's Zanclea gemmosa 

 as quite distinct from Halocharis, and this error is perpetuated 

 by A. Agassiz in his "Catalog of N. Am. Acalephae," p. 183. 

 These errors have continued throughout the literature up to the 

 present time, though as will be shown, it has later been deter- 

 mined that the medusa which McCrady described as Zanclea, or 

 rather Gemmaria gemmosa, is liberated from a hydroid resem- 

 bling Agassiz's Halocharis spiralis. That Murbach, who first 

 observed the liberation of this medusa, was correct in identifying 

 it with McCrady's Gemmaria gemmosa, I have abundantly satis- 

 fied myself at various times since. But he is clearly in error in 

 attempting to identify it with McCrady's Corynitis, due no doubt, 

 to the earlier error of Agassiz as already pointed out. Murbach 

 is also in error in attempting to distinguish a generic difference 

 between Agassiz's Halocharis and the Gemmaria of European 

 writers, as I have elsewhere pointed out {Mitt. Zool. Sta. Neapel, 

 Vol. XVI., pp. 574-577, "Medusae of Woods Holl," 1904, 

 p. 42). 



