482 MR. BE. 'f. BROWNE ON (Mar. 17, 
be easily recognized. The other fourteen species of Thaumantias 
form a miscellaneous group, which, owing to their vague descrip- 
tions, have caused a considerable amount of trouble to recent 
writers on Medusz. 
Haeckel has divided these species amongst two families— 
Thaumantide and Eucopide—the former characterized by the 
absence of marginal vesicles, and the latter by the possession of 
them. Forbes has omitted the vesicles in the descriptions and 
figures of nearly all his species, and according to his views 
they were worthless for specific characters. If Forbes had only 
added these important organs to his drawings, which have been 
rendered almost useless by their omission, the present confusion 
would never have arisen. It is clear that Forbes has seen the 
marginal vesicles in some of the species, as in his monograph (p. 9) 
he writes:—“I have observed the vibration of the otolites 
distinctly in more than one species of Thawmantias.” 
After the publication of Forbes’s monograph the name of 
Thaumantias hemispherica appeared on most lists of Medusa, 
usually without any description of the medusa. 
Since the appearance of Haeckel’s monograph the name has 
gone out of fashion, and Phialidium variabile has taken its place. 
For three years I have searched for Thaumantias hemispherica 
and the allied species, also without marginal vesicles, but without 
any success. Every specimen, which has the slightest resemblance 
to one of Forbes’s figures, possesses marginal vesicles. 
I may here add that specimens preserved in alcohol are not to 
be relied upon for the absence of marginal vesicles in the living 
medusa ; the vesicles often shrivel up and the otoliths disappear. 
Laopicr crucrata (Forskal). 
Haeckel has placed under the name of Laodice cruciata no less 
than twenty-five synonyms, which are divided into two groups— 
one for the Mediterranean form of Laodice cruciata, and the other 
for the Atlantic form. 
The synonyms of the Atlantic form may be divided into two 
sets, one referring to Medusa cequorea, Baster (1759), the other to 
Thaumantias pilosella, Forbes (1848). 
Medusa equorea, Baster (1759); Linneus (1767). 
Callirhoé basteriana, Péron and Lesueur (1809); Eschscholtz 
(1829); Blainville (1834). 
The original descriptions and figures of this medusa given by 
Baster, and copied by other writers, without any additional 
information, appears to me to be too vague for the purpose of 
identification. The drawings clearly show that the sub-umbrella 
has been injured, as the stomach and some of the bands of gonads 
on the radial canals are in a damaged condition. Whatever kind 
of medusa Baster had under observation, the description and 
figures appear to be too vague to identify it with any species 
known to us at the present day. 
