275 



name Medusa cequorea. In 1809 Peron and Lesueur published in the 

 • Annales du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle,' vol. xiv., their important 

 classification and synopsis of all known Medusae. In that paper, ex- 

 cellent though it be, they increase the confusion, by giving the name 

 oi Mquorea atlantica to Loefling's animal, JEq. danica to Miiller's, 

 ^q. groenlandica to that of Fabricius, ^q. Forskalea to that of For- 

 skal, and jEq. stauroglypha to a new species of their own, probably 

 identical with all the others. In 1829 Eschscholtz, in his 'System 

 der Acalephen,' attempted to rectify this confusion, by rejecting all 

 these names excepting ^q. Forskalina, that alone having been suffi- 

 ciently described. In 1843 Lesson pubHshed his History of Acale- 

 phae in the 'Nouvelles Suites a Buffon,' and, to make confusion worse 

 confounded, rejected all rectifications and restored all the names and 

 imperfectly noticed individuals to full specific rank. 



After attentively considering the notices more or less perfect that 

 the various older observers have given, of what they call Medusa 

 cequorea, I am led to the belief that in most instances one species, 

 not several, was met with, and that the creature I now describe and 

 figure as British is identical with the Medusa cequorea of Loefling, 

 Forskal and Miiller. Since Forskal alone described and figured it in 

 a comprehensible manner, the name Mquorea Forskalea, proposed by 

 Peron, is pecuUarly appropriate, the more so since that of Medusa 

 patina of Modeer was proposed under a mistake. Forskal expressly 

 states that his species is common to the North Atlantic and the Medi- 

 terranean, and that it inhabits the Danish seas, where it is called 

 "Vandmand," that is. Waterman. 



It remains to be seen whether our species is related to the JEquo- 

 rea violacea of Milne-Edwards, well described and beautifully figured 

 in the 16th volume of the 2nd series of the 'Annales des Sciences 

 Naturelles,' and observed by that eminent naturalist in the Mediter- 

 ranean. From an examination of its anatomy he first showed the 

 serious error committed by Eschscholtz in considering the JEquoridcB 

 as cryptocarpous. I am inclined to agree with Milne-Edwards in 

 considering his species distinct from that of Forskal. The genital 

 glands are not prolonged nearly so close to the margin ; the lips of 

 the stomach are not furbelowed ; the bases of the tentacles are not 

 bulbous, and originate regularly between the gastro-vascular canals. 



There were no eyes observed by the distinguished zoologist just 

 quoted in the species he examined. In ours the eyes are evident, 

 and a determination of their position and appearance is of conse- 

 quence, since they confirm the affinity of jEquorea with the Naked- 

 eyed Medusae, whilst at the same time, in the Uttle appendage or 

 rudimentary lid projecting above them, they indicate an approach to 

 the Steganophthalmatous type, such as is consistent with the general 

 high organization and aspect of the ^quorea when compared with 

 other Gymnophthalmatous forms. 



It is interesting to remark that the j^quorea ciliata of Eschscholtz 

 is a North Pacific species, beautifully representing, yet quite distinct 

 from, jTJquorea Forskalea. 



