96 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
work. During these two earlier seasons it seems probable that certain minute and 
inconspicuous forms were overlooked by the collectors. It is likewise probable that 
some closely related species were confused in the field records. This is perhaps true to 
some extent even of such common forms as Eudendrium ramosum and E. dispar, though 
samples from many of the stations were fortunately preserved for future reference. 
The apparent scarcity of nearly all hydroids throughout Buzzards Bay, as por- 
trayed by the distribution charts, may be due in some measure to the fact that no 
specialist in this group was present during the season of 1904, when the original Fish 
Hawk dredging was carried on in that body of water. We are, however, inclined to 
attribute a minor importance to this fact in judging of the occurrence of hydroids in 
Buzzards Bay, since records from 29 stations which were redredged in 1909 do not 
materially affect our ideas regarding the local distribution of these organisms. 
The data utilized in the preparation of our catalogue, aside from those derived 
from our own collecting operations, are based principally upon the published works of 
A. Agassiz (1865), Verrill (1873), Nutting (1901), and Hargitt (1901-1908). In addi- 
tion, special records were furnished by members of the investigation staff or by others. 
Particular mention must be made of some rather extensive manuscript notes kindly 
contributed by Prof. Hargitt. The latter authority likewise consented to revise our 
annotated list in respect to nomenclature and classification, though he regards these as 
being still to a considerable extent provisional. 
About 20 species new to science have been described during the past 10 years by 
Hargitt, Nutting, Mayer, and others from specimens taken within the limits of the 
present region. At least two of these (Ectopleura prolifica Hargitt and Keratosa com- 
plexum Hargitt) were described from specimens obtained during the course of the survey 
dredging; while a number of them were first collected and described during this same 
period, though independently of the dredging operations. Still other species (Calypio- 
spadix cerulea, Opercularella pumila, Sertularia versluyst, Sertularella polyzonias, Aglao- 
phenia minuta, Tealia crassicornis), though more or less familiar elsewhere, have been 
added to the known fauna of these waters through the dredging and collecting opera- 
tions which form the chief subject of the present volume. 
Verrill and Smith (1873) recorded 72 determined species of coelenterates from 
definitely stated points within the limits of the region, together with a considerable 
number of others which were doubtful, undetermined, or extralimital. Among the 
foregoing 72 species were 57 Hydrozoa, 3 Scyphozoa, 8 Actinozoa, and 4 Ctenophora. 
Certain of the species listed by Verrill (e. g., Haleciwm gracile, Edwardsia farinacea, and 
E. lineata) do not appear to have been encountered in local waters by later naturalists. 
Indeed, repeated search by our parties for Edwardsia lineata at points where it was 
said to be abundant by Verrill failed to bring to light a single specimen. On the other 
hand, certain species which were not listed at all in the ‘‘Invertebrate Animals of Vine- 
yard Sound”’ are now known to be common in these waters. Such are Podocoryne 
carnea, Lizzia grata, Tubularia couthouyi, Staurostoma lacimata, Epenthesis folleata, 
Halecium halecinum, Gonionemus murbachit, and Sagartia lucie. The last-named 
species we know to be a recent immigrant into these waters, which probably arrived 
here within the past 15 years. Indeed it has, during this briet period, become by far 
the most abundant of our local actinians. Whether or not any of the other species are 
