[MCMURRICH] THE ACTINIARIA OF PASSAMAQUODDY BAY 75 
Ehr, and this having been accepted as identical with Müller’s crassicornis, 
it too became generally known as Urticina crassicornis. Ehrenberg, 
however, doubtfully identifies his crassicornis with the Act. crassicornis 
of Gmelin and Lamarck, and describes it as having a smooth column 
wall and as inhabiting the Mediterranean. He further points out that 
Rapp (1829), identifies the species with the Act. mesembryanthemum of 
Ellis and Solander. It seems certain that Rapp was correct in this 
identification and that, therefore, Ehrenberg’s species was not Miiller’s 
crassicornis, but really the form properly known as Actinia (or Priapus) 
equina L. We may, therefore, regard Urticina as a synonym of Actinia 
(Priapus) and reject it, as Carlgren has done, or, since Ehrenberg has 
selected no type for this section, we may select one by the process of 
elimination. The second species named as belonging to the section 
is Act. erythrosoma, but this cannot be taken as the type, since Klun- 
zinger (1877), has referred it to Paractis, although it is more probably a 
Condylactis (McMurrich, 1889). The third species named is Act. 
papillosa, which seems to be identical with Müller’s crassicornis and 
has generally been so regarded. This, then, may be selected for the 
type and Urticina crassicornis be taken, provisionally, as the proper 
name of the type species. This procedure has the advantage of pre- 
serving a name, which since its first employment by Verrill in this appli- 
cation (1869) has been very generally in use. The name Rhodactinia, 
as already indicated, was proposed by L. Agassiz in 1847, and Tealia by 
Gosse in 1858. Both of them are, accordingly, antedated by Urticina. 
So much for the generic name, but the specific one also requires 
consideration. Miiller’s term crassicornis dates back to 1776, but 
before that time the species was well figured by Baster in 1762 and de- 
scribed as ‘‘Actinia rugis longitudinalibus, proboscidibus longis crassis. ” 
Linnæus in the XIII Ed. of the Systema (1767) bestowed upon this 
form the name Actinia felina, his actual words being! 
Felina. 3. A. subcylindrica striata levis, glande muricata. — 
Baster Subs. 3 p. 120, t. 13, f. I. Actinia rugis longitudinalibus, 
proboscidibus longis crassis. 
Habitat in O. Europæo. 
Linnæus’ description is somewhat difficult of explanation, but it is 
sufficiently evident that he intended the name felina to be applied to 
the form described by Baster and figured on his Pl. XIII, fig. I. I have 
already referred to the confusion occurring in the literature on account 
of the application of the Linnean name senilis to Müller’s crassicornis and 
need not repeat the story here. It is worthy of note, however, that 
Müller recognized the identity of Baster’s form, referred to by Linnæus 
