ACTINIARIA 



185 



but he adds that he is convinced that they are hexamerously arranged. The peculiarity of this genus should 

 be that "the generative organs are modified into a single tube perforating the oral Up". Hertwig's descrip- 

 tion of this tube is, however, founded on an examination of bad material and makes the impression that an 

 abnormal formation was present. Though it is difficult to decide its nature on basis of the observations of 

 Hertwig, I will, however, give as my opinion that the genital tube has arisen by regeneration and probably 

 represents an additional actinopharynx, developed in a reproductive region (compare Carlgren 1904 p. 

 II — 12). The whole formation is, however, so peculiar that a closer examination of it is necessary, before 

 Hertwig's statement can be accepted. Disregarding this formation, I think that it is possible to place 

 Aulorckis in the vicinity of Parasicyonis or Sicyonis. 



Cynibactis (type C. faecidenta Mc. Murr.). The description of the t5^e (Mc. Murrich 1893 p. 174) 

 is in some respects incomplete. Still I think that we have to do with a distinct genus, characterized as follows : 



Paractiidae with well developed basal disc and thick crateriform body, with smooth, in contracted 

 state rugose, column which is devoid of tubercles and acrorhagi. Sphincter muscle relatively weak, placed 

 close to the endoderm. Margin tentaculate, not lobed. Tentacles short, acuminate and slender, not bulbous 

 at the base, numerous. lyongitudinal muscles of the tentacles and radial muscles of the oral disc mesogloeal. 

 2 siphonoglyphes. Mesenteries hexamerously arranged, at least the first 2 cycles perfect. I/ongitudinal 

 muscles of the mesenteries form no special pennons. Distribution of the reproductive organs? Mesenteries 

 more numerous in the upper part of the column than in the proximal part. — This genus is separated from 

 Pycnanthus by a richer development of mesenteries in the distal than in the proximal part, while in Pycnan- 

 thus it is the opposite. From Mc. Murrich's description of Cynibactis we namely may conclude that it is 

 so. Mc. Murrich speaks of the presence of 48 mesenteries (twenty-four pairs) but of 96 tentacles. As in 

 Actininae we are not able to suppose a richer development of tentacles than of mesenteries, Mc. Murrich 

 must have overlooked weak mesenteries in the most distal part of the body. Perhaps also the reproductive 

 organs are differently arranged in the two genera. Of the other known Cynibactis I have placed C. actinosto- 

 loides Wassil. and maxima Wasill. to Parasicyonis, and C. gossei Stepli. to Sicyonis (compare these genera). 



Hormosoma (type H. scotti Steph.). This seems to be a distinct genus (compare Stephenson 1918 a 

 p. 29). It is easy to give a more complete diagnosis on basis of Stephenson's description. 



Kadosactis (type K. rosea Dan.). I have examined the single type-specimen. Owing to the bad pre- 

 servation, especially of the filaments, wliich were totally macerated, I cannot definitively confirm the real 

 position of this genus. The animal has a very strong sphincter and very strong longitudinal muscle pennons. 

 I am inclined to consider this form as a Phellia. I will come back to this genus in the second part of this work.' 



Kyathactis (type K. hyalina) is an Actinostola (compare Actinostola spetsbergensis). 



Lilliella (type L. lacunifera Steph.). The position of this genus, proposed by Stephenson (1918 a 

 p. 33) is dubious. The only specimen was namely badly preserved in the inner parts. The whole exterior 

 of the species and the presence of only six perfect mesenteries indicate that the species belongs to the Chon- 

 dractiniinae, viz. to a family with acontia. 



Marsupifer (type M. valdiviae Carlgr.) is synonymous with Haliatithella Kwietn. belonging to the family 

 Halcampidae, and the species probably is the same as H. kerguelensis (Stud.). A closer examination of the 



The Ingolf-Expedilion. V. 9. 24 



