124° oS. *W. Hewkes—Medusa from New England. 
mouth. Hight sense bodies on the bell-margin. Hight to 
sixteen or more narrow radial canals, branched, and forming 
by anastomosis a network of vessels in the subumbrella. Gen- 
erally with a ring canal.* Four internemral sexual glands in 
the aboral wall of the four separate gastral subgenital cavities. 
The Pilemide are divided into three sub- families ; ici 
Lycunormzipa. II. The Evpriemips. III. The Sromo- 
LOPHIDA. 
The Lychnorhizide, among other characteristic features, dif- 
fer from the other sub-families in the absence of scapulettes. 
The Hupilemide and Stomolophide have eight pairs of scap- 
ulettes, but in the former sub-family the eight oral arms are 
three-winged,+ free from each other, and not grown together. 
In the Stomolophide the oral arms are dichotomously branched, 
and more or less grown together. Nectepilema is thought to 
belong to the sub-family of Hupzlemide, and to be allied to 
Pilema and Rhopilema. The presence of “Scapuletten” re- 
moves it from the Lychnorhizide, Toreumide, and Crambessidee 
as defined by Heckel. It differs from the Stomolophide Heck. 
in that the oral arms are not consolidated as in Stomolophus, 
nor dichotomously branched at their free extremities as in 
Brachwolophus, the only two genera of this sub-family. It is 
more closely allied to Brachiolophus than to Stomolophus. 
The close allies of Nectopilema among the Hupilemide are 
the two genera Pilema and Rhopilema. From the former it 
differs in several particulars, the most striking of which is the 
possession of numerous ‘‘Gallertknopfe’’ appended to the 
lobes .of the oral arms. Whether this feature is enough to 
separate Rhopilema from Pilema cannot be discussed here. It 
-is noteworthy that Heeckel found a specimen of the common 
P. octopus (Rhizostoma octopus auct.), regarded by him as abnor- 
mal, in which there were numerous appendages to the oral 
arms, as in thopilema. . 
Of the different species of Pilema all except P. clavigera 
Heeck. have a larger number of marginal lappets in the um- 
brella margin than Nectopilema, which has forty-eight velar 
lappets (six in each octant) and sixteen occular, while P. 
clavigera has thirty-two velar and sixteen occular lappets. 
Nectopilema has numerous filamentous appendages to the oral 
arms, while, as far as known, P. clavigera Heeck. has but one. 
* Nectopilema has no marginal ring canal. 
+ Both the Lychnorhizide and the Eupilemide, according to Heckel, have the 
eight oral arms ‘“dreikantig” or ‘ dreijliigelig,’ while the Stomolophidz have 
oral arms dichotomously branched, more or less grown together. The lobes of 
Nectopilema are more than three to each oral arm, but the arms are not branched 
nor grown together. This fact adds a new argument to support my supposition 
that Nectopilema stands on the border line between Brachiolophus, Pilema, and 
Rhopilema. 
