23 



brium; d, d Radiærkarrene; e Velum; f de 3 Randtraade 

 i fuldt udstrakt Tilstand; g den store 31appede Randbul- 

 bus; h, h de smaa Randbulber. 



Fig. 3. Samme seet fra en af de til den store Randbulbus til- 

 grændsende Sider, b Subumbrella; de øvrige Bogstaver 

 som paa Fig. 2. 



Fig. 4. Manubrium stærkere forstørret fra Siden, c den midterste 

 noget opsvulmede Del af samme; c' den simpelt tilrun- 

 dede Ende med Mundaabningen. 



Eig. 5. Den store Randbulbus tilligemed de tilgrændsende Dele 

 stærkt forstørret, d et Stykke af det til denne Randbul- 

 bus løbende Radiærkar; f Basis af de 3 Randtraade med 

 de ringformigt ordnede Nesselorganer; g Randbulbens 

 midterste med celluløst Indhold fyldte Lap; g 4 g' de 2 

 Sidelappe. 



Fig. 6. Et Stykke af en af Randtraadene endnu stærkere forstør- 

 ret, a, a de ringformigt ordnede Nesselorganer. 



III. BESKRIVELSE OVER MYRIOTHELA 

 PH RYG IA (Lucernaria), 0. Fabr. 1 ) 



(Tab. 2, Fig. 29—36). 

 Syn. Lucernaria phrygia, Otto Fabricius, Fauna Grønlandica p. 343. 



Candelabrum phrygium Blainville, Manuel d'Actinologie, p. 317. 



Myriothela arctica, M. Sars, Zoologisk Reise i Lofoten og Fin- 

 marken, p. 14. 



Myriothela arctica, Idem, Forh. ved de Skand. Naturforskeres 

 Møde i Christiania 1856, p. 194. 



Candelabrum arcticum Agassiz, Contributions to the natural 

 history of the United States, Vol. 4, p. 341. 



I |enne mærkværdige Hydroide, hvoraf jeg fandt 2 Exem- 

 •^ piarer ved Tromsø i Finmarken paa 20 — 30 F. D., 

 viser vistnok i enkelte Henseender et umiskj endeligt For- 

 vandtskab med Slægterne Coryna og Syncoryna, men er 

 i andre Henseender igjen saa afvigende ikke blot fra disse, 



1 ) I Aaret 1850 blev dette Dyr af min Fader (Zoologisk Reise 

 i Lofoten og Finmarken, p. 14) under Benævnelsen Myriothela arc- 

 tica anmeldt og i Korthed characteriseret som en ny Slægt og Art 

 blandt Hydroiderne, staaende mellem Coryne og Syncoryne, og 

 senere under samme Navn udførligt beskreven (dog uden Afbild- 

 ninger) i Forh. ved de Skand. Naturf. Møde i Christiania 1856, 

 p. 194. 4 Aar derefter havde han under det næste Naturforsker- 

 møde i Kjøbenhavn 1860 Anledning til i det derværende Museums 

 Samlinger at se et Exemplar fra Grønland af den problematiske af 

 O. Fabricius beskrevne Lucernaria phrygia og erkj endte strax i 

 dette Dyr sin Myriothela arctica (se de trykte Forhandl, p. 693), 

 hvorfor ogsaa den ældere Artsbenævnelse, phrygia, maa bibeholdes. 

 Fabricius anfører (l, c) om dette Dyr, at han kun provisoriskt har 

 henført det til Slægten Lucernaria, og at det i visse Henseender 

 viser mere Tilnærmelse til SI. Hydra. Han har saaledes ialfald til- 

 nærmelsesvis havt et rigtigt Begreb om denne Forms systematiske 

 Stilling. Derimod har Blainville flere Aar derefter ganske og alde- 

 les miskjendt dette Dyrs sande Natur, idet han (l, c) stiller det 

 som en egen Slægt, Candelabrum, ved Siden af Slægten Sipun- 

 culus, og altsaa henfører det til en vidt forskj eilig Dyrtype. Da 

 han imidlertid ikke selv havde Anledning til at undersøge dette 

 Dyr, har han kun ganske i Forbigaaende omtalt det med den oven- 

 nævnte Bemærkning under sin Artikel, Lucernaria, og har saaledes 

 saa langt fra at opklare denne Forms sande Natur, meget mere 

 stillet den i et endnu mere problematisk Lys. Paa Grund af Prio- 

 riteten har dog Agassiz (l, c) bibeholdt det af Blainville foreslaaede 

 Slægtsnavn og kalder vort Dyr Candelabrum arcticum, idet han 

 anser det for specifiskt forskj elligt fra den af Fabricius beskrevne 

 Form. Derimod har Th. Hincks nylig i sin History of the British 



brella; c, the manubrium ; d d, the radial vessels; e, the 

 velum; f, the 3 marginal filaments fully extended; g, the 

 large 3-lobed marginal bulb ; h h, the small marginal bulbs. 



Fig. 3. The same viewed from one of the sides adjoining the 

 large marginal bulb: b, the subumbrella; the other letters 

 as in fig. 2. 



Fig. 4. The manubrium, more strongly magnified, side view: 

 c, the middle somewhat enlarged part; c' } the simply 

 rounded extremity with the oral aperture. 



Fig. 5. The large marginal bulb with adjacent parts, strongly 

 magnified : d, a portion of the radial vessel leading to 

 this bulb; f, the base of the 3 marginal filaments, with 

 the annularly arranged thread-cells; g, the middle lobe 

 of the marginal bulb filled with cellular matter ; g 4 g 4 , the 

 2 lateral lobes. 



Fig. 6. A portion of one of the marginal filaments still more 

 strongly magnified: a a, the annularly arranged thread- 

 cells. 



III. DESCRIPTION OF MYRIOTHELA PHRYGIA 



(Lucernaria), 0. Fabr. i) 



(Tab. 2, fig. 29—36). 

 Syn. Lucernaria phrygia, Otto Fabricius, Fauna Grønlandica, p. 343. 



Candelabrum phrygium Blainville, Manuel d'Achtinologie, p. 317. 



Myriothela arctica, M. Sars, Zoologisk Reise i Lofoten og Fin- 

 marken, p. 14. 



Myriothela arctica, M. Sars, Forh. ved de Skand. Naturforskeres 

 Møde i Christiania, 1856, p. 194. 



Candelabrum arcticum Agassiz, contributions to the natural 

 history of the United States, Vol. 4, p. 341. 



A lthough this remarkable Hydroid, of which I found 2 

 -*--*- specimens at Tromsö in Finmark at the depth of 

 20 — 30 fathoms, shews in some points an unmistakable 

 affinity to the genus Coryna and Syncoryna, it is in other 

 respects again so different, not only from these but from 



x ) In the year 1850 this animal was noticed by my father 

 (Zoologisk Reise in Lofoten og Finmarken, p. 14) under the name 

 of Myriothela arctica, briefly characterised as a new genus and 

 species among the Hydroids, standing between the Coryne and Syn- 

 coryne, and subsequently under the same name minutely described 

 (but without delineations) in Forh. ved de skand. Naturf. Mode i 

 Christiania 1856, p. 194. 4 years afterwards he had, while attend- 

 ing the next meeting of the naturalists at Copenhagen in 1860, 

 occasion to see in the collection of the Copenhagen museum, a 

 specimen from Greenland of the problematical Lucernaria phrygia 

 described by O. Fabricius; and he recognised immediately in this 

 animal his own Myriothela arctica (see the printed transactions, 

 p. 693) for which reason also the older specific denomination phry- 

 gia must be retained. — Fabricius states (I. c.) concerning this 

 animal, that he has only provisionally referred it to the genus 

 Lucernaria, and that in certain respects it exhibits more affinity 

 to the genus Hydra. He had thus, at least approximately, formed 

 a correct idea of the systematic position of this form. But on the 

 other hand Blainville, several years later, entirely mistook the true 

 nature of this animal, placing it (I. c), as a peculiar genus Cande- 

 labrum, by the side of the genus Sipunculus, and therefore 

 refers it to an entirely different type. As however he had not 

 himself had occasion to examine the animal, he has only men- 

 tioned it, as it were en passant, with the above remark in his article 

 on Lucernaria; and he has therefore — very far from elucidating 

 the true nature of this form — placed it in a still more proble- 

 matical light. From considerations of priority Agassiz has however 

 {I. c.) retained the generic name proposed by Blainville, and calls 

 our animal Candelabrum arcticum, regarding it as specifically diffe- 



