BIOLOGICAL STUDY OF CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERS 
333 
E. A. Andrews reports the occurrence of an anemone (probably of the same species) 
from the Severn several miles above Annapolis. It seems to be adapted to water of 
a rather low salinity but to an extensive range of temperatures. However, it must 
not be forgotten that another factor affecting the distribution is the presence of hard 
objects for attachment. The 12 samples mentioned above were taken in water which 
varied in salinity from 11.46 to 18.47 per mille, and in temperature from 5.3 to 24.1° C. 
Fragments of a coral which were probably the calcereous portions of Astrangia 
danse Agassiz were brought up on 9 different occasions by the beam trawl or the mud 
bag. These were all found near the mouth of the bay — 4 times at area G; 5 times at 
area E; once near Cape Henry (all three of which localities are directly in the mouth 
of the bay); and once at area A off Cape Charles City. In addition to this, Radcliffe 
reports finding “white corals, many growing on stones” at station 8592 near Cape 
Henry in about 18 meters of water. 
CTENOPHORA 
The ctenophores are a conspicuous element in the plankton of Chesapeake Bay 
at certain times of the year. They were so abundant during some of the cruises of 
1920, 1921, and 1922 that they interferred with the proper working of the townets. 
No attempt was made to study the ctenophores intensively, and whatever records 
we have are the result of general observations on their relative abundance made 
when the nets were brought in. Beroe ovata Chamisso and Eysenhardt is known to 
occur in the bay. It was collected by Mayer (1912) from St. Marys River, Md., 
in November, 1905, and has been figured in his monograph on the ctenophores. 
Beroe jorskalli was reported by Bigelow (1922) as being present in the mouth of the bay 
and outside in July, 1913. Radcliffe, in the unpublished log, reports the presence 
of a “ Pleurobrachialike ” ctenophore at stations near the mouth of the bay — for 
example, at areas G and A in March, 1916, and again at areas in the same general 
region in April, 1916. Very probably the species was Pleurobrachia pileus or possibly 
the nearly related species P. brunnea, if the latter is a valid species. It is also probable 
that Mnemiopsis gardeni, which is known to frequent brackish-water bays and 
estuaries from Chesapeake Bay to northern Florida, was common in the bay. During 
the January cruise, 1916, ctenophores were abundant in several localities, but on the 
March and April cruises they were scarce except at stations near the mouth of the 
bay. They were abundant in the southern half of the bay during the June cruise 
and all over the bay on the July cruise, although in greater numbers in the upper half. 
The ctenophores were still very abundant in the upper waters of the bay and extremely 
abundant near the mouth of the Potomac River during the September cruise. Similar 
conditions were found in 1920. During the January, 1920, cruise they were numerous 
all over the bay, but in March they were found only at areas E, F, and G, which are 
in the mouth of the bay. On the May cruise they were still scarce; but on the July, 
October, and December cruises they were again numerous all over the bay, and 
especially so near the mouth of the Potomac in December. 
The ctenophores were still widely distributed over the bay during the January 
cruise of 1921, but again as in 1916 and 1920 the hauls so far as made on the March 
cruise showed a scarcity. It must be stated, however, that at many areas during 
this cruise the nets were not used. On the May -June cruise the ctenophores were 
more numerous. Finally, again during the January and March cruises of 1922, they 
showed conditions similar to other years — that is, a wide distribution during the 
