UKl'OUT ON THE M TIMAIM \. 71 



and Calliactis [Sagartia) parasitica ; I have been able to corroborate them in five different 



speeies of the Challenger material, and found, moreover, that in no instance, where the 

 acontia wore present, was the differentiation <»f the septa wanting, and that tin 

 Amphianthidse were the only Actiniae in which the acontia were absent, though the 

 septa showed the Sagartid type. I therefore feel justified in making use of both 

 characters to limit a family of Actinia?, which I still term Sagartidse, as most of 

 the forms belonging to it have been determined as such by former authors. 



A third characteristic is common to all Sagartidse, viz., the presence of a strong 

 mesodermal circular muscle, but this is only of subordinate value, as it occurs in other 

 families. 



Nearly all the descriptions published of the Sagartke and the closely allied forms are 

 unfortunately so imperfect that it is impossible to determine how far the forms hitherto 

 described come under the above diagnosis. As yet, we can only assume this to be 

 definitely the case in Sagartia schUleriana, discovered by Stoliczka (Journ. Asiat. Soc. 

 Bengal, vol. xxxviii. part ii. p. 28-63, 18G9). Another form, Sagartia troglodytes, may, 

 on the other hand, be considered as an exception; v. Ileider states (Sitzungsber. der 

 Wiener Akad., Math. Naturw. CI., Bd. lxxv. Abth. 1, p. 367, 1877) that in it forty-eight 

 pairs of septa reach the oesophagus, and at the same time describes formations in it, 

 which undeniably are acontia, though the author does not distinguish them from the 

 mesenteric filaments. However, as I have already specially remarked, I am doubtful 

 whether v. Heider has not confused sections through the oral disk with sections 

 through the oesophagus, and consequently over-estimated the number of the perfed 

 septa. Such a mistake might easily occur in highly contracted animals like those 

 which he examined. 



As far as we can judge at present, the family of the Sagartidse, as I have now 

 defined it, would coincide on the whole with Gosse's Sagartidse. The most essential 

 difference is that I have included the genus Bunodes in it. In so doing I relied upon the 

 examination of a single species, which showed externally the arrangement of papillae 

 characteristic of the Bunodes, but which must be placed among the Sagartidse, from its 

 anatomical constitution. It remains for future observers to determine whether the 

 structure is the same in the other species as in our Bunodes minuta ; at present 

 it is quite possible that perfectly heterogeneous species have been included under the 

 same generic name. It must, however, be borne in mind that Verrill (Transact. Connect. 

 Acad., vol. i. p. 467) and Jourdan do not attribute any acontia to the genus Bunodes, 

 and Gosse (Actinologia Britannica, p. 204) only to a single species. 



Verrill has separated the sub-family of the Phellinse from the Sagartidse, an innovation 

 of which I do not approve, as there are transition forms between Sagartia and Phellia. 

 The cuticular secretion, the "epidermis" of the said authors, which covers the wall 

 of Phellia as far as a ring close under the tentacles, is present, though less highly 



