LUCEENARIANS OF PORT ERIN. 153 



deed I do not think it is capable of doing so. In this 

 respect it differs from most Lucernarians. This species has 

 been the subject of no Httle confusion, into the discussion 

 of which I must enter at some length. 



It was first described and figured in 1846 as Lucernaria 

 cyatliiformis, by Michael Sars, in the "Fauna Littorahs 

 Norvegise," (4). In 1858 Gosse in his '' Synopsis of the 

 British Actiniae " (5) founded the genus Depastrum, based, 

 I think, chiefly on specimens found by himself at Wey- 

 mouth, which he regarded as identical with the Lucernaria 

 cyatliiformis of Sars. In 1859 Allman who had also 

 discovered (in the Orkney Islands), what he considered 

 the Lucernaria cyatliiformis of Sars, in ignorance of 

 Gosse's name, instituted a second one — Garduella (6), 

 and in the following year gave a more detailed account of 

 his species (7) with figures. Similarly a third generic 

 name was founded by Milne Edwards (10) viz., Galicinaria. 

 Gosse then pointed out (8) the claims of his name Depas- 

 tru7n to priority, he also gave further details with figures 

 of the Weymouth specimens w^iich he now elevated to 

 specific rank as Depastrum steUifrons as it appeared to 

 differ in certain points from Allman's species which re- 

 tained the name Depastrum cyatliiforme since he (Gosse) 

 regarded it as identical with the Lucernaria cyatliiformis 

 of Sars. To this Allman replied (9) that the points of 

 difference between Depastrum and Carcluella were of 

 generic not specific value merely, and that the name 

 Carcluella cyatliiformis must stand for his own and the 

 Norwegian form, which he also regarded as identical. 

 Thus the matter rested until the publication of Clark's 

 Prodromus in 1868 (12) wherein the matter was practically 

 cleared up, Clark having had the advantage of being able 

 to compare specimens of the Orkney form from Allman 

 with specimens of various ages sent to him by Sar^s from 

 Norway. 



