_ 9 — 



through the margin and of its mesenteries could show, it resembled 

 that fona vevy closely indeed. The pseudo-tenta.cles, which were six 

 in numher, also resembled those of L. neglecta in their general forni, 

 but differed in that vesicular elevations, spherical in forni and some- 

 tinies stalked, were abundant on the smaller branches, sometimes at 

 the points where the branching occurred, but also frequently on the 

 upper surfaces of the branches. They were entirely lacking on the 

 main stems and primary branches. 



This beiug the only difìerence that could be observed between this 

 forni and L. neglecta, the question arises as to whether it is to be 

 regarded as sufficient for speciflc distinction. Verrill (1899) holds that 

 it is, while Duerden (1808) has described vesiculated forms as L. ne- 

 glecta. I have reexarained the specimens of L. neglecta which I de- 

 scribed from the Bahamas, and find that while no vesicles are to be 

 noticed on some of the fronds, a few minute ones could be distinguished 

 on some of the smaller branches ofothers. They were, however, very 

 inconspicuous and could be recognized only with the aid of a lens ; 

 in the living specimen they were certainly imi noticeable. In view 

 of this observation il seems to me that the development of the vesi- 

 cles is more or less variable, ami, indeed, that they may vary greatly 

 even in a single individuai according as they aro oxpanded or retracted ; 

 a remark of Duchassaing and Michelotti (1864, p. 37) suggesting dit- 

 te rences in this respect. I ara satisfied that the forni I describe from 

 the Bahamas is identical with the L. neglecta of Duchassaiug and 

 Michelotti, and, if this be so, it follows that L. Danae and L. neglecta 

 are identical, the bitter terni baving the priority. 



Duerden (1809) has stated that he believes Hoplophoria coì-alligens 

 (H. V. Wilson) to be the young of L. neglecta, but opinion upon this 

 point must be reserved until be has presented the promised evidence 

 in favor of it. It may be pointed out, however, that jet another sy- 

 nonym possibly exists in Rhodactis muscìformis Duch. Mieli. (1864), 

 which seems to be a small specimen ofLebrunia in which the vesicles 

 are larger than usuai, so that they give to the pseudo-tentacles a 

 nodose appearance. The faets that it is provided with dichotomously 

 arborescent appendages and is associated with L. Danae in the genus 

 Rhodactis, point strongly to its being a Lebrunia. 



Fani. STOICHAOTIDAE. 



Si/non: Stoichactis anemone Kllis (Duch.) Haddon. 

 ? Actinia anemone Kllis, 1767. 

 ? Hydra anemone <Tmelin, 1788. 

 ì Cereus unemone Oken, 1816. 



