[MCMURRICH] THE ACTINIARIA OF PASSAMAQUODDY BAY 63 
same figure a second time as an illustration of his A. effeta. That it 
was the intention of Linnzus to identify his A. senilis with the form 
figured by Baster in his fig. 2, Pl XIII, seems so evident that it is 
difficult to understand the amount of importance that has been attri- 
buted in the literature to the additional erroneous citation of Pl. XIV, 
fig. 2: 
The third reference in the Systema is to the original description of 
P. senilis, and the fourth is to the mention in a work by H. Stroem, 
entitled Physisk og ceconomisk Beskrivelse over Sdndmor, Soroe, 1762, 
of an Actinian known locally as Sôekuse, and described as being red 
with red streaks. There is nothing very definite in this description and 
considering the imperfections in the specific identifications of Actiniæ 
at the time of the publication of the Sytema, Ed. XII, it is not surprising 
that Linnæus was tempted to identify the form with one with which 
he was personally familiar. It seems very probable, however that O. 
F. Muller (1776) was correct in identifying Stroem’s form with his A. 
crassicornis, an identification that had much influence on the confusing 
A. senilis and A. crassicornis of which so many later authors were 
guilty. 
It may be of interest to note that in the copy of Stroem’s work 
in the library of the Linnean Society of London there is a marginal note 
opposite the description of the Sôekuse, reading “ Priapus senilis” and 
said to be in the handwriting of Linnæus. 
A study, sine ira et studio, of the significance of Linnzeus’ synonyms 
leads, then, to the conviction that he intended his Actinia senilis to be re- 
garded as identical with Baster’s Actinia rugis orbicularibus, proboscid- 
ibus multis tenuibus as illustrated in PI. XIII, fig. 2, and since this is the 
only one of the forms referred to whose identification is certain, it would 
seem that we must now accept Linnæus’ term for that species. There 
is of course the possibility that Linnæus was in error in this identifi- 
cation, that his P. senilis was really an entirely different species; but his 
descriptions of that form are too indefinite to yield any evidence either 
for or against such a supposition, and we must, I think, accept his identifi- 
ation of a form which he originally described from his personal observa- 
ion with a form so readily recognizable from Baster’s figure. Senile, 
then, is the correct specific name for Metridium dianthus. 
This has been recognized by several authors, as, for instance, 
Adams (1800), Johnston (1838), Fischer (1874) and Haddon (1889); but 
the majority of writers have preferred some other name, usually dian- 
thus. Various other specific names have been proposed: Pennant’s 
pentapetala has already been mentioned; plumosa was proposed by O. 
F. Miller in 1776; polymorpha by Bishop Gunner in 1774; caryophyllus 
by Martin in 1786; it was described by Dicquemare (1773) as Anemonie 
