175 



In the original description of the Duva rosea now called Euneph- 

 thya rosea, Koren and Danielssen 4 describe and figure the stomodaeum, 

 Kükenthal describes the stomodaeum of Eunephthya rosea v. umbel- 

 lata, from Spitzbergen 5 . I have examined the stomodaeum of a specimen 

 of the same species from the coast of Ireland. 



In all these cases the stomodaeum appears to be long and thrown 

 into folds and in specimens examined by Koren & Danielssen and 

 myself the epithelium is glandular. 



In Spongodes on the other hand the stomodaeum is short, and but 

 slightly folded and does not contain gland cells 6 . In a series of sections 

 I have made through a branch of Eunephthya maldivensis, I find that 

 the species agrees with Eunephthya and differs from Spongodes in this 

 character. The stomodaeum is long, considerably folded and glandular. 



In order to test the value of this character of the stomodaeum in 

 the classification of the family I have reexamined the specimens of 

 Nephthya chabrolii and Nephthya [Lithophytum) virescens described by 

 Miss Hiles and myself from New Britain. In both these specimens the 

 stomodaeum is longer than in Spongodes but as the preservation is not 

 very good I cannot feel certain that the histological character resembles 

 that of Eunephthya. 



On comparing our specimen from the Maldives with Nephthya 

 [Lithophytum) virescens in respect of other characters I find there are 

 many points of resemblance but as the anthocodiae are not confined to 

 the lobules but scattered and somewhat isolated on the branches, it 

 does not come within the range of the definition of the genus Lithophy- 

 tum, as defined by Kükenthal. However as the specimen is a small 

 one, and the species may undergo some change in this character as it 

 attains its full dimensions, I am disposed to believe that the species 

 would be better placed in the genus Lithophytum as defined by Küken- 

 thal than remain in the genus Eunephthya. 



I am willing to adopt this course rather than extend the diagnosis 

 of Eunephthya to include it, in order to avoid further confusion in the 

 systematic arrangement of the tropical species of the family. But in 

 doing so and thereby adopting Prof. Kiikenthal's definition of the 

 genus Lithoplnjtum, I cannot fully accept the view that the presence or 

 absence of the Stützbündel is a satisfactory character on which to base 

 the classification of the family. The genus Lithophytum as amended by 

 Kükenthal, which includes the species formerly referred to A)nmothea, 

 is closely related to Nephthya , although the Stützbündel is present in 

 the latter and absent in the former. These two genera are also more 

 closely related to Eunephthya than either of them is to Spongodes. More- 

 over I cannot accept the proposal to divide the genus Spongodes into 



4 Koren u. Danielssen, Nye Alcyonider. 1883. p. 2. 



5 1. c. p. 366. 



e W. Harms, Zool. Anz. XXX. 1906. S. 542. 



