296 BULLETIN 100, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



PHIALUCIUM MBENGHA var. POLYNEMA, new variety. 



Plate 41, fig. 8. 



Octocanna polynema Browne, 1905, p. 144, pi. 2, fig. 8-10. 

 Octocanna polynema Maas, 1905, p. 38, pi. 6, figs. 41, 42. 

 Phialidium heptactis Vanhoffen, 1911, p. 225, fig. 15, pi. 22, fig. 11. 

 Phialidium phosphoricum, forma polynema Vanhoffen, 1912, p. 19. 



PJiialucium mbengha variety polynema — material examined. 



The specimens listed above are apparently an octoradial race 

 of Phialucium mbengha, which they resemble in all particulars ex- 

 cept the number of canals, slightly larger size, and proportionally 

 shorter gonads. And the differences in size and gonad length are 

 so slight that of themselves they would be no obstacle to locating 

 the specimens in P. mbengha. The only question is whether we are 

 dealing here with a sport, or with a race which has more or less crys- 

 tallized, so to speak, in the octoradial condition. And the records of 

 variation in the number of canals among Eucopidae have so multi- 

 plied within the last few years (Mayer, 1910, Vanhoffen, 1912, 1913) 

 that the first alternative may be correct. But inasmuch as simi- 

 lar sports of this species have been recorded previously, as shown 

 by the synonymy given above, it is wisest to dignify it with a varietal 

 name. 



Genus EUTIMA McCrady 1857. 



It is now generally agreed that Haeckel's (1879) subdivision of this 

 genus, according to the number of gonads, was artificial. But since 

 Apstein (1913) and Neppi and Stiasny (1913) have recently revived 

 the genus Octorchis Haeckel, I may point out that McCrady (1857) 

 in his original account of Eutima noted the fact that in both species 

 some specimens had four gonads (i. e., on subumbrella only) ; others 

 eight (on both subumbrella and peduncle). These observations hav- 

 ing been substantiated by more recent studies (notably by Brooks 

 1886, Maas 1905, and Mayer 1910), there is no longer any warrant 

 for distinguishing Octorchis with eight from Eutima with four 

 gonads ; it is not even a specific difference. Apart from the number 

 of gonads, Maas (1905) and Mayer (1910) limit the genus Eutima 

 in different ways. And Hartlaub (1909) does not recognize it at all, 

 but believes that it must be subdivided into various genera. In my 



