[McMURRICH] THE ACTINIARIA OF PASSAMAQUODDY BAY 61 
as far they go, the two forms being representatives of one and the same 
species. The A. dianthus described by Dawson (1858) from the St. 
Lawrence is again correctly identified, so that there is no necessity for 
the name A. canadensis that Dawson suggested, and the Metridiwm 
marginatum mentioned by Packard (1867), by Ganong (1885), and by 
Whiteaves in his earlier papers is no doubt that form, and is listed by 
Whiteaves in his Catalogue (1901), as M. dianthus, my conclusions as 
to its identity with that form having been accepted. 
When we come to consider the validity of the term M. dianthus 
the case is not so clear. The generic term Metridiwm, proposed by 
Oken in 1815, is without doubt the proper one, having fifteen years 
priority over Actinoloba, proposed by Blainville in 1830, and employed 
by Gosse and Andres. But the use of dianthus as the specific name is, 
I believe, incorrect for more than one reason, and I wish to consider the 
early svnonomy of the species and decide once for all, if possible, what its 
proper name should be. 
The name Actinia dianthus dates back to 1767, when it was pro- 
posed by Ellis. But in that same year there was published that part 
of the Systema Nature Ed. XII, in which Linnæus describes the 
Actinians, and in this, as will be shown later, there is a form that is un- 
doubtedly the same as that described by Ellis. It does not seem pro- 
bable that we can now determine whether Linnzeus’ name had priority 
of publication over that of Ellis, but this is a matter of little importance, 
since in the preceding year, 1766, Pennant had described what is evi- 
dently the same form under the name A. pentapetala, the allusion being 
to the lobation of the disk which is so characteristic of the species. 
Pennant’s term, therefore, has priority over that of Ellis, but the term 
employed by Linnzus in 1767, was used at an earlier date than Pen- 
nant’s, as an examination of its history will show. The term is Actinia 
senilis, and the specific portion of it was first used by Linn:eus in 1761, 
in the second edition of the Fauna Suecica. In that work there is to be 
found the following description :— 
2103. Priapus senilis subcylindricus, rugosus. 
Habitat in Ostreis Oceani. 
Descr. Corpus magnitudine extimi articuli digiti; sordidum, 
extremitate fuscum, rugosum, apice perforatum, constans tunica 
subcoriacea, intra quam tunica tenera, mollis, sanguinea, intus 
referta seminibus flavis sparsis. 
It is impossible to determine from this description alone the form 
that Linnæus had under observation, but in the Systema Nature Ed. 
XII, he employs the same specific name for a species which it is possible 
to identify. In this work the form is thus described :— 
