of the originai label and presumably written, as Professor Camerano 

 suggested, by De Filippi ; and flnally two written by Carlgren, one of 

 which was a repetition of the originai label and the other Carlgren's 

 own identifìcation. In one case there was evidently a mistake in the 

 label, but in ali the others it was clear that the specimens were 

 actually those to which Duchassaing and Michelotti had intended the 

 name on the label to apply. There were no indications to show 

 whether any of the specimens were really « types », but whether 

 they were or not they are the only extant reprensetatives of the types 

 and must be accepted as the basis for the interpretation of Duchassaing 

 and Michelotti ' s descriptions. 



In the following pages I shall not confine myself to a mere de- 

 scription of the specimens, but shall take the opportunity for discussing 

 certain questions of nomenclature which their study has called up. 

 I shall, however, limit my remarks mainly to such species and genera 

 as belong to the West Indian fauna. 



Fam. PHYLLACTIDiE 



In 1852 Milne-Edwards and Haime established the sub-family Phyl- 

 lactinse for two genera which they named Phyllactis and Oulactis. 

 The characteristic feature of the group was the occurence between 

 the bases of the tentacles and the apparent margin, of frondose stru- 

 ctures, now generally recognized to be modifìed acrorhagi, and the 

 two genera were distiuguished according to the non-occurrence or 

 occurreuce, respectivety, of verruche. The type of the genus Phyllactis 

 was P. praetexla Cout., while that of the genus Oulactis was 0. 

 muscosa Drayton. An examination of the fìgures of P. praeteocta gi- 

 ven by Dana (1846) shows very clearly that there has been a misun- 

 derstanding as to the true nature of the fronds ; they appear to have 

 been regarded as structures defìnitely circumscribed and separated 

 frum the column, possessing both an upper and a lower surface, indeed, 

 the terni fronds so frequently applied to them has its origin in this 

 idea. In reality, however, being acrorhagi, they are developments of 

 the margin, and what has been taken for their free under surface is 

 really the upper portion of the column. Looked at in this w&y, it 

 will at once be perceived from Dana's fig. 39a that the so-called 

 tubercles on the under surface of the fronds of P. praeiexta are really 

 verruche upon the upper portion of the column and, consequently, the 

 distinction between the two genera vanishes so far as it is based 

 upon the absence or presence of verruca 1 , and, so far as our present 

 knowledge goes, there seems to be no other valid basis for their 

 distinction. 



