— 6 — 



than that of conci» ilega, the umber-brown colour of the fronds may 

 be of some importauce and, linally, my failure to observe a sphincter 

 in the single specimen I coliected is more readily understood if it 

 was of the diffuse type such as occurs in fasciculata. 



There is, however another forni which seems beyond qnestion to 

 be identica] with A. concliilega, and that is the forni described by 

 Duerden (1002) as Asteractis expansa. I bave preparations of this 

 forni from Cuba, and also, through the kindness of I)r. Duerden, from 

 Jamaica, and in ali I find essentially the sanie type of frond and 

 sphincter. In describing the Cuban specimens I expressed the opinion 

 (1808) that they agree very closely with the (losculifera of Duchas- 

 saing and Michelotti and that that forni was probably different from 

 Lesueur's, but owing to the uncertainty that existed as to the actual 

 distinctness of the two forms I preferred to retain Duerden's name 

 for the specimens under consideration. The study of the Turili spe- 

 cimens has removed ali doubt as to the identity of A. expansa with 

 them, and that name, so far as it applies to the forms I have studied, 

 may now be regarded as a synonym for A. concliilega. It is to be 

 noted, however, that the spincter figured by Duerden for A. expansa 

 differs decidedly in form from that which I find both in the Cuban 

 specimens and, what is more important, in the specimens sent me 

 by Dr. Duerden from Jamaica. Possibly two different species, resem- 

 bling each other closely externally, have been included in A. ex- 

 pansa, or else Duerden has selected a somewhat aberrant sphincter 

 for illustration. These possibilities must remain uncertain at present, 

 but it is certain that the expansa which I described from Cuba and 

 those specimens which Duerden sent me from Jamaica are identical 

 with Duchassaing and Michelotti's A. concliilega. 



Actinostella radiata (Duch. Mieli.) 



A single specimen of this species was found. On one of the accom- 

 panying labels, that snpposed to be Duchassaing's, the word « radiata » 

 was plainly discernible, but the generic name was illegible; the De 

 Filippi label read Oulactis radiata. 



In its general appearance the specimen resembled A. concliilega 

 closely, but the tubercles on the fronds were perhaps not quite so 

 numerous and the verrucae in each longitudinal row seemed to be 

 fewer. The number of acrorhagi and tentacles could not be counted, 

 as a portion of the margin had been removed, but they could not be 

 far from forty-eight. 



The sphincter (Fig. 2) was well developed and of the circumscribed 

 ciidodermal type, dili'ering, however, in its details from that of A. 

 concliilega. Thus it was mudi more distinctly bipinnate and the 

 lateral lamellae were less branche^ so that, aséxhliihg' thè forms 



