56 THE MEDUSAE. 



species it is impossible to determine ; and probably C. multifield Haeckel, 

 because founded for a very fragmentary alcoholic specimen, which may not 

 belong to the present genus at all. The remaining species enumerated by 

 Haeckel (79) are C. globosa Eschscholtz, C. campanulata Eschscholtz, C. lativen- 

 tris Gegenbaur, C. prolifera Gegenbaur, C. rubiginosa Kolliker, and C. rhodo- 

 dactyh, Haeckel. Eschscholtz's figures and description of C. globosa are, as 

 usual, recognizable, and agree with one of the species in the present collec- 

 tion. Haeckel has classed C. globosa Gegenbaur as a synonym of this species. 

 Stchelkanowzew (:06) has doubted the correctness of this conclusion, chiefly 

 it seems on grounds of geographic distribution; but there seems to be 

 nothing in Gegenbaur's figure to show that his specimens differ from 

 Eschscholtz's species, and as differences in distribution certainly are not 

 fit grounds for specific distinctions, I shall include it as a synonym of the 

 latter, unless, indeed, it might be better to regard Gegenbaur's name as a 

 nomen nut/inn, on account of the rather insufficient nature of his description. 

 C. globosa is certainly very closely allied to C. lativentris Gegenbaur, the main 

 differences being merely in the form of the bell and of the otoporpae. 

 C. lativentris Gegenbaur is the best known and most often recorded member 

 of the genus. It is taken regularly in the Mediterranean, and has recently 

 been recorded by Maas (: (M c ) from the Atlantic. Strange to say, however, 

 no altogether satisfactory figures of it have ever appeared. As to the status 

 of C. campanulata Eschscholtz, not recorded, so far as I can learn, since first 

 described, it seems impossible to reach any conclusion of value without a 

 study of fresh material. There is good reason for believing that C. rubiginosa 

 Kolliker and C. rlioihuhn-'gln Haeckel are identical, since Metschnikoff ('86 b ) has 

 found all intermediate stages between the two, and concludes that ITaeckel's 

 specimens of C. rkododactyla were merely small C. rubiginosa. This view is 

 likewise belli, though witb reservation, by Maas (: 04°), but the latter author 

 prefers to retain the name C. rhododactyla instead of the older name C. rubi- 

 ginosa, because of the excellence of Haeckel's figures of the former. This 

 species, which appears well characterized, lias been recorded frequently from 

 the Mediterranean and recently | Maas : til'), from the Atlantic. C. prolifera 

 Gegenbaur is a doubtful species. In many respects, e. g. number of radial 

 parts and number of otocj Bts per lappet, it resembles C. rubiginosa and may 

 perhaps In- a synonym of that form. 



It is very important to know the true status of C. proloscidea Metschni- 

 koff, since it has been the basis of the very valuable embryological studies 



