1903.] meduSjE from British Columbia and Alaska. 167 



pear-shaped tentacle-bulbs, having each two nematocyst pads ; 

 the relatively short proboscis and tentacles. 



Fewkes (14) has described a Medusa fi-om the Southern 

 coast of California under the name of Syncoryne rosario, the 

 hydroid form of which he thinks is the Coryne rosario of Agassiz. 

 Although he figures it with no apical process it is undoubtedly a 

 true Oodonid. It seems to be very closely related to our species, 

 so far as can be determined. Possibly it is a southern variety, 

 or possibly the two are identical. From Fewkes's description it 

 is difficult to definitely identify his species. While it is possible 

 to determine little from his figures and description (the latter 

 answering for almost any known Oodonid), it seems his 

 species possess a rather sharp conical bell, no apical process, and 

 a proboscis a third shorter than in our species. On the other 

 hand, if he identifies it with Syncorytw or Coryne rosario, then 

 from what we know of Agassiz's (2) description of this 

 medusa, the bell would not be so pointed, and the pi-oboscis 

 would be longer than in our species. In a memoir published the 

 same year as the paper mentioned above, but in a different 

 journal (15), Fewkes names it Syncoryne occidentalis, sp. nov, ; 

 no reference is made to his former paper or classification, the 

 same drawing and description being used for both papers. It is 

 unfortunate, after finding this Medusa in such abundance at 

 difierent places on the Oalifornian coast, he has not given us a 

 more definite description. 



Brown (8) has remarked, in speaking of C. pulchelhmi, that 

 while he has always found the apical process (the " Scheitel- 

 Aufsatz " of Haeckel) present, the "Stielcanal" is frequently very 

 difficult to distinguish and is sometimes absent. In G. apicuhtm 

 absence of the " Stielcanal " was never observed, although 

 numbers were examined with this point in view. On the 

 other hand, the apical process, or " Scheitel-Aufsatz," was very 

 poorly marked in some individuals, especially in small and young 

 specimens, some of which had the sharp conical bell shown in 

 Fewkes's figure (14, pi. xxv. fig. 7). 



Agassiz (2) in his figure of Coryne rosario, p. 177, repre- 

 sents it as possessing a " Stielcanal " but no apical process, the 

 top of the bell being rounded. Haeckel (18) divided the 

 original genus Sarsia of Forbes into the two genera Codonitcm 

 and Sarsia. Codonitmi is characterised by the possession of 

 an apical process and " Stielcanal," Sarsia by their absence. 

 While Haeckel places the Sarsia pulchella of Forbes under 

 Godoniwm (this species, according to Brown, sometimes having 

 the " Stielcanal " absent), he has retained the Coryne rosario of 

 Agassiz undei" Sarsia, although Agassiz plainly represented it 

 with a "Stielcanal." Both these forms possess certain characters 

 of each genus. 



Codoniiom apicuhtm differs from C. princeps in the shape of 

 the bell, the tentacles, and the tentacle-bulbs. It also differs 



