LUCERNARIANS OF PORT ERIN. 157 



from the Sutherland coast may be, there is very strong 

 evidence that it is not the same species as the Orkney 

 Garduella. First, since Clark had been able to compare 

 undoubted specimens of the latter with specimens of 

 Lucernaria cijathiformis from Bars, his opinion as to their 

 identity must carry great weight ; and secondly, Clark has 

 given an account of the structure of this species, based on 

 the above named specimens, the accuracy of which 

 Haeckel acknowledges ; and this account shows that these 

 specimens differ materially in their internal organisation 

 (more especially in the presence of mesogonial pouches) 

 from the structure which is found in the genus Dej^asi^re/Za 

 according to the type species from the Canary Islands — 

 Depastrella carduella, of which he gives figures. He gives 

 no figures of Depastrella allmani but describes it as having 

 practically the same internal structure as Depastrella car- 

 duella, consequently if Haeckel' s description of the Suther- 

 land species be correct, it is obvious that its internal 

 anatomy differs considerably from that of Carduella, how- 

 ever similar they may be in external features, and we may 

 safely conclude that Carduella cyathiformis, Depastriim 

 cyathiformis and Lucerjiaria cyathiformis are one and the 

 same species. 



Sub-family — Eleutherocarpid^ . 



Haliclystus auricula, (Eathke). 



A small Haliclystus was found near Port St. Mary by 

 M. Chopin, in 1891, on a lobster pot I believe, and is now 

 in the Zoological Museum at University College, Liver- 

 pool. I have seen the specimen and, as far as I can judge, 

 it is H. auricula, but it may possibly be H. octoradiata 

 (Lamarck, 3). The shape and size of the marginal anchors 

 seem to be those typical of H. auricula ; the characters of 

 the gonads I have not been able to make out satisfactorily. 

 With regard to these two species we again meet with 



