350 
EE VIEWS. 
In his comparison of the marginal bodies of both sections, Pro¬ 
fessor Agassiz seems, notwithstanding, to have forgotten the peculiar 
nature of their contents in the higher Medusa, together with the 
fact, that their supporting stalks received coecal processes from the 
canal system. This character they share in common with Charybdcea 
marsupialis, type of the Charybdeidce of Gegenbaur,* to whom and 
to Pritz Muller, a German naturalist pursuing his investigations on 
the shores of Brazil, we are much indebted for the most recent and 
valuable additions to our scanty knowledge of this very interesting 
family. To the last mentioned observer,f our thanks are more 
particularly due, and we would dwell for a moment on the somewhat 
striking coincidence that the very question at present under con¬ 
sideration should simultaneously have engaged the attention of two 
European naturalists, both making use of their own original 
materials, both residents on the great American -continent, the one 
in its Northern, the other in its Southern division, and working, 
therefore, quite independently of one another. 
The swimming-bell of the Charybdeida has its convex surface 
supplied with deep radiating furrows, and clefts in which the four 
marginal bodies are lodged. In one genus, Tcimoya , a distinct veil 
is present. The oral proboscis (polypite) is more like that of the 
Cryptocarpce than that of the higher Medusae , but, as in the latter, 
the central cavity within the substance of the bell is furnished with 
the peculiar filaments before referred to. These are not, however, 
situate in the immediate neighbourhood of the reproductive organs, 
which are lodged in large lateral pouches of the central cavity. 
The pouches may or may not be further produced into canals. There 
is no circular vessel. The tentacles are distant from the margin, 
being borne at the free ends of large characteristic processes which, 
in some cases, replace them altogether. The marginal bodies re¬ 
semble those of the Phanerocarpa. 
The JEginidce appear to lead from the Charybdeidce to the lower 
Medusa , differing from the latter in most of the characters which 
distinguish the former. Their reproductive organs are developed 
within similar pouches, but ‘ generative tentacles ’ have not as yet 
been detected. There is no proper canal system. The disc is 
emarginate,{ furrowed, and furnished with a veil. The tentacles 
arise from the convex surface of the bell, at some distance from its 
margin. The marginal bodies are usually stalked, but in their 
contents are said to resemble the 4 vesicles ’ of the Cryptocarpa. 
It must be admitted, therefore, that some facts support the 
proposition of Eritz Muller, to unite the Charybdeida and JEginida 
* See his essay on the Marginal Bodies of the Medusas in Midler’s Archiv., 1856. 
f We refer especially to his memoirs, ‘ Die Magenfaden der Quallen,’ Z. W. 
Z. IX. 1858, p. 542 ; ‘ Zwei neue Quallen \_Tamoyd] von Santa Catharina 
(Brasilien).’ Halle Abh. V. 1859; and ‘ Ueber die systematische Stellung der 
Charybdeiden,’ Wiegm. Arch. XXVII. 1861, p. 302. 
X A fact denied by Gegenbaur, but re-asserted by Fritz Muller. 
