ACTINIARIA 



145 



In the apex of the tentacles the nematocysts show a size of 96 — 192 X 3,5 — 4,5 /i, in the proximal part 68 

 — 120x3,5 — 4 A*- Probably we have to do with a new species which provisionally may be named B. maxima. 



Fam. Cribrinidae s. Bunodaciiidae. 



Diagnosis. Basilaria with well developed pedal disc. Column sometimes smooth, sometimes with 

 sucking warts or ampullaceous papiUae. Acrorhagi (bourses marginales) or pseudo-acrorhagi sometimes 

 present. Sphincter strong, endodermal circumscribed. Tentacles short or of ordinary length, rarely with 

 transversal swellings on their oral surface [Ixalactis). Mesenteries arranged after the number of 6, 8 or 10. 

 Perfect mesenteries usually numerous. Acontia always absent. 



The genera belonging to this family must undergo a renewed revision. It is true that Mc. Murrich 

 (1901) has made an attempt to give a more distinct definition of the genera of this family, but his attempt 

 seems too provisional to me. Besides, the genera cannot be definitely limited until the family has been 

 examined more particularly as to its anatomy. In liis pubhcation (1901) Mc. Murrich comprises 12 

 genera, 3 of which with an interrogation mark. Of these latter Tealiopsis must be completely excluded as, 

 according to my examination, it is synonymous with Stomphia and therefore not belonging to this family. 

 On the systematic place of TJielaciis^ and Physactis we cannot as yet set forth any opinion, as they have not 

 been anatomically examined. The genus Gyractis^ is not identical with Cribrina, as Mc. Murrich thinks 

 possible, but very likely with Anihopleura, and the genus Leiotealia must perhaps be dropped, based as it is 

 on the presence of a smooth column, a character which it has in common with the older Epiactis of Verrill, 

 as well as with Isotealia and partly with Urticina. It is, however, possible that it can be retained, but in that 

 case the diagnosis of the genus must be altered and perhaps partly be founded on the appearance of the 

 longitudinal muscles of the mesenteries which seem to differ from those in Epiactis. So far the genus must 

 be regarded as dubious. The genus Isotealia is certainly a distinct genus and not synonymous with Leio- 

 tealia, as Hertwig does not mention the presence of any perforated pseudo-acrorhagi in the latter genus 

 (among others). Pseudophellia is not identical with Tealiopsis which latter does not belong to this family 

 (compare above!), but, as far as I understand, with Epiactis. True enough, the column of Pseudophellia 

 arctica, "the type of the genus, is covered by an adherent cuticle" (Verrill) , as, however, the column of the 

 type of Epiactis, E. prolijera, which I have had the occasion to examine, is Umited towards the outside by a 

 cuticle, though a very tliin one, and as it seems easily deciduous, there exists between the cuticle of Pseudo- 



1 Thelaciis is probably a Bunodeopsis and not belonging to the family. 



2 Unfortunately a control examination of the specimens, determined by Boveri as Gyractis, does not seem to be possible. 

 I have not been able to distinguish with certainty in the Munich Museum the specimens examined by Boveri. In the collection of 

 Dr. Ondaatje there are, however, a number of specimens externally exactly resembling Boveri's Gyractis — part of these specimens 

 had been sectioned, probably by Boveri. These latter as well as the whole collection were badly preserved and the ectoderm almost 

 in all places lost. On several specimens I could, however, find a great number of closely packed, large nematocysts in glycerine prepar- 

 ations of the region of the acrorhagi. This indicates that there are true acrorhagi. As besides the sphincter was circumscribed the 

 specimens must belong to the genus Aiithopleura. As also Boveri mentions acrorhagi ("Randblaschen") in Gyractis, there is no doubt 

 that Gyractis is synonymous with Anthoplenra. The absence of directive mesenteries and siphonoglyphes in Gyractis possibly might 

 serve to justify the establishment of a special genus; I do, however, think that it is unnecessary, above all because I am not fully con- 

 vinced that Boveri's observations concerning the mesenteries are correct. Some of the above named Gyracits-shaped specimens, 

 examined by myself, were furnished with 2 pairs of directive mesenteries. As Boveri's examination of the mesenteries seems to be 

 somewhat superficial, it will be advisable to accept with caution his statement of the absence of directive mesenteries and siphono- 

 glyphes in the genus Gyractis. 



The IngoIf-ExpeditioD. V. 9. " 



