Pacific Species of "Lar” — Hand 
65 
chipelago by Maas (1905). This variety should 
be elevated to at least the rank of subspecies 
and will be so considered in this study. P. 
ornata stolonifera is a good-size medusa (about 
5 mm. diameter) but has few tentacles as 
compared to other Pacific species, its maxi- 
mum number being about 20. Also, it is 
distinctive from other Pacific species in its 
possession of medusa-bearing stolons. It ap- 
pears that this subspecies has been derived 
from the Atlantic P. ornata-P. ornata gemmifera 
complex, P. ornata (McCrady) being known 
from southern New England to Beaufort, 
North Carolina, and P. ornata (McCrady) var. 
gemmifera Fewkes (see Mayer, 1910, for first 
usage of this combination) from North Ca- 
rolina to the Bahamas. As in the instance of 
the variety stolonifera, this variety {gemmifera), 
will be considered a subspecies. The species 
P. ornata is distinguished from its subspecies, 
P. ornata gemmifera, by the habit of the latter 
of producing medusa-bearing stolons which 
arise from the radial corners of the stomach. 
Thus we have an interesting series of medusae, 
ranging from New England to the Bahamas, 
which, as southerly regions are reached, seem 
to develop the character of asexually produc- 
ing medusae from the medusa stage, and this 
southern form has a close relative in the warm 
waters of the Pacific which has a similar char- 
acteristic. If one allows the speculation, it 
seems possible that the Pacific P. ornata stolo- 
nifera was separated from the Atlantic P. 
ornata gemmifera after a period of submergence 
and emergence of the Panamanian Isthmus. 
It would be of real interest to study the 
host substrates of the ^'ornata complex” to 
see if these worms are related in a manner 
similar to that of the medusae. 
Kramp (1952) has reported Prohoscidactyla 
ornata from the west coast of Chile. He had 
but a single 3-millimeter specimen at his dis- 
posal, and this specimen was not in good 
shape. The possibility that P. ornata exists 
along the coast of Chile will not be denied; 
however, it may well be that this particular 
specimen really represents a young specimen 
of P. mutahilis or an undescribed species. That 
Kramp 's medusa was not a P. ornata seems 
even more likely if one considers the known 
distribution of this species and its subspecies 
in conjunction with the existing current sys- 
tems (see, for example, Chart VII in Sverdrup, 
Johnson, and Fleming, 1946). 
Uchida (1927) rather thoroughly surveyed 
the anthomedusan fauna of Japan and in this 
study listed five forms of what now make up, 
part of the genus Prohoscidactyla, but did not 
at that time recognize P. flavicirrata as occur- 
ring in that area. In a subsequent report 
Uchida and Okuda (1941) reported from 
Japan a hydroid and medusa they took to be 
that of P. flavicirrata, which I assume to be 
correct. The identification of P. ornata and 
P. ornata gemmifera in Japan (Uchida, 1927) 
presents a problem in distribution and sys- 
tematics. The P. ornata may well be the young 
of P. flavicirrata, but the phenomenon of 
budding in the medusoid stage has not been 
reported for this latter species, so that there 
is no ready suggestion as to what this budding 
form may have been. That P. ornata and some 
of its subspecies do or do not occur in Japan 
cannot be stated with certainty at this time. 
Moreover, the answer to this riddle may lie 
in the fact that the ability of medusae of this 
group to reproduce asexually may be more 
widespread than is now realized. A number 
of possibilities as to the identity of Uchida’s 
P. ornata and P. ornata gemmifera certainly 
exist. The species Willia stellata, Willia pacif- 
ica, and Misakia typica (1927) would 
best seem to be considered as synonyms of 
P. flavicirrata, although the critical test of 
this statement must await a study of their 
nematocysts. 
In the many records of the occurrence of 
Prohoscidactyla, one notable fact is that these 
medusae are absent from the high seas. They 
occur instead in bays and along the coasts of 
most parts of the world. This distribution 
must certainly be the result of the dependence 
of the hydroid upon sabellids, which worms 
are most common in shallow water. A second 
