— 5 — 



terally pinnate. The lateral lamellae were abundantly branched and 

 the whole structure had the appearance in section shown in Fig. 1. 



This species was originally described by Duchassaing and Mi- 

 chelotti in their memoir of 1860 under the name Oulactis flosculifera 

 Lesueur, being evidently regarded as identical with the Actinia flo- 

 sculifera described by Lesueur in 1817. There is great doubt, however, 

 as to the correctness of this identification, and it is preferable to 

 employ the terni which Duchassaing apparently had first in mind and 

 which he employs on p. 40 in the explanation of Fig. 7, PI. VII, and 

 likewise on his label accompanying one of the specimens. (*) 



This choice of terms has already been raade by Verrill (1809), who 

 recognizes in the Oulactis fasciculata which I (1880a) described from 

 the Bermudas and which is evidently quite different from A. conchilega, 

 a representative of Lesueur's Ad. flosculifera. Certainly Lesueur's de- 

 scription of the fronds, « Margin furnished with several rows of tu- 

 bercles surmounted with small warts », agrees better with the con- 

 ditions in fasciculata, than with those in conchilega, and, furthermore, 

 the preyailing umber colour noted by Verrill in living jndividuals of 

 fasciculata agrees better with Lesueur 1 s account than with Duchas- 

 saing and Michelotti's, whose specimens were greenish. 



TI' Verrill's e nclusions regarding this identification be accepted, 

 and I believe they onght to be, it remains to be considered whether 

 any of the forms which have been recently described are identical 

 with Duchassaing and Michelotti's A. conchilega. Verrill gives as syn- 

 onyms of it 0. flosculifera McMurrich (1880 ; aud 0. foliosa Andres 

 (1883). The latter terni is merely a new name suggested by Andres 

 in the belief that Duchassaing and Michelotti's flosculifera was dif- 

 ferent from Lesueur's, and is unnecessary in view of the existence of 

 conchilega. As to the forni which I described as flosculifera, a re- 

 examination of my preparations leads me to believe that it is more 

 likely identical with Lesueur's flosculifera than with conchilega. My 

 statement that there were but twenty-four rows of verrucae and a 

 corresponding number of fronds was probably erroneous, since there 

 were forty-eight tentacles and as many mesenteries; sections through 

 the fronds present an appearance much more like that of fasciculata 



(*) It is to be noted that on Duchassaing's label and in the memoir the 

 specific term is spelled conquilega. On De Filippi's label, however, it appears 

 as conchilega , which is probably more correct, the term indicating the 

 adhesiou of particles of shell to the verrucae mentioned in the description 

 of the species. The originai spelling may be regarded as a lapsus calami 

 and therefore is subject to correction. 



