No:.1./] ACTINIARIA OF THE BAHAMAS. 5 
being that I exclude the genus Bunodes which Hertwig includes 
in it, on the ground that since one of the forms originally in- 
cluded in that genus by Gosse — B. coronata — possesses acontia, 
there is a possibility that all the members of the genus may 
possess them, though as yet they have not been observed. The 
truth of the matter is that the So-called Bunxodes with acontia 
described by Gosse (60) and Hertwig really are Sagartidz, the 
former belonging, as Andres has pointed out, to the genus 
Chitonactts of Fischer (75), while the latter is a Cy/zsta. The 
external character, the possession of warts arranged in parallel 
rows, is of small importance compared with the internal struc- 
tural characters, which in the true Bunodidz are very different 
from what is to be found in the Sagartidz. In his later paper 
(88), Hertwig corrects the mistake he made in considering his 
Cylista minuta a Bunodes. 
Gosse’s family, Sagartidze, is slightly different in the forms 
included, the difference being due partly to ignorance regarding 
the structure of non-British forms, and partly to the attributing 
of too much importance to external characters. Dzéscosoma, 
which he assigns to this family, belongs really to an entirely 
different sub-tribe, and Azptasza, which he places among the 
Antheadz, ought to be included. The sub-family Sagartinz of 
Verrill (68) and Klunzinger (’77), and the Sagartidz of Andres 
(83), differ from the group as I have defined it above by the 
exclusion of Phe//za and allied genera on account of their pos- 
session of an external investment. It seems hardly correct, 
however, to make of the Pe//a forms a group equivalent to the 
Bunodidez, for instance ; I should prefer an arrangement of this 
kind, — 
Family Sagartidz. 
(The definition as above.) 
Sub-family Sagartine. 
Sagartida, without any external membranous investment. 
Sub-family Phellinze. 
Sagartidz, with an external membranous investment. 
