80 CLASSIFICATION OF MEDUSAE. 



into simple, tentaculate, sub-proboscidean, proboscidean, and branched. In the last section 

 are assembled the covered-eyed species. The juxtaposition of Mquorea and Ohelia in the 

 second section, of Thaumantias and Conis in the third, and of Hippocrene and Dianaa 

 in the fourth, are instances of the unnatural way in which the genera are distributed in this 

 otherwise ingenious system. 



" Brandt, who appears to have founded his studies among Medusae chiefly upon the 

 drawings and notes of Mertens, divided the Diseophora into Monostomous and Polystomous, 

 subdividing the former into Oceanidce, in which we find Circe and Conis placed together, 

 Mquoridm and Medusida, the latter including the covered-eyed species very naturally 

 assembled, except the Rhinostomidce, which, along with the Geryonidai (in which tribe he 

 includes Hippocrene), constitute the polystomous section ; so that it is evident this eminent 

 author did not clearly perceive the affinities of the several groups. 



Lesson, who, besides an extensive acquaintance with living forms, had the advantage of 

 being last in the field, arranged the Discophorce under four groups: 1st, " Les Meduses 

 7ion-proboscidees,'' in which we find several families, including genera, juxtaposed, having no 

 immediate affinity; 2d, "Les Oceanides ou Meduses vrais," including Mquorea and its allies, 

 with a heterogeneous assemblage of forms in the genus Oceania ; 3d, " Meduses agaricines 

 ou prohoscidees" — here are Sarsia, Diancea, Geryonia, Tima, Thaumantias, &c., the group 

 being in the main equal to my Geryonidts, though some genera, as Saphenia, are brought 

 into it far away from their fellows ; and 4th, ""^ Meduses a pedoncule central ou Rhi%ostomees" 

 consisting entirely of the covered-eyed species, much more naturally assembled together than 

 in any of the preceding classifications, except those of Peron and Eschscholtz, a personal 

 familiarity with the objects he describes, having led Lesson, as it did them, to similar arrange- 

 ments of the more conspicuous tribes. 



All the authors I have just cited, regard the Discophorce, or Pulmograda, as a separate 

 division of the Acalephce, or Arachnodermata, the whole class being distinct from the 

 Zoophyta. Recent discoveries, however, would go far to show that such a separation is 

 unnatural, and that the hydroid Zoophytes, at least, are very closely allied, if not belonging, 

 to the same natural order with the Pulmograde Medusae. 



On the side of the Zoophyta, the facts bearing on this question have been chiefiy derived 

 from the families Corynidce, Tubulariadce, and the genus Campanularia. More than a 

 century ago, when the nature of Zoophytes, whether animal or vegetable, was under dis- 

 cussion, Bernard de Jussieu, who pronounced rightly for their animal origin, described 

 certain little round, red, pedunculated bodies, encircling the head of the Tubularia. Nearly 

 half a century after. Otto Frederic MuUer observed similar bodies around the head of the 

 Coryne, and maintained that they were eggs, and for an equal period this view of their nature 

 was generally received. In the year 1833, Professor Rudolph Wagner gave an account* of 

 the production of medusiform bodies in a Zoophyte of the Adriatic, the Coryne aculeata, 

 which bodies he regarded as the young of the animal, although they themselves contained 



* In Oken's Isis, for 1833. 



