— It- 

 one of tbe'm and now described so as to be readily recognized. Why, 

 then disregard Duohassaing's specifìc term, supplanting it by lielian- 

 thus ? I ara quite in accord with Carlgren's suggestion that Ellis's two 

 forms be regarded as identical, but it seems to me that it will tend 

 less to confusion and will follow more closely the spirit of the rules 

 of nomenclature to adhere to Duchassaing's identifìcation of his species 

 as D. anemone, referring it, of course, to Haddon's Stoichactis. 



With regard to the specifìc narae of Duerden's Homostichanthus it 

 may be noted that in 1817 Lesueur described a forni under the narae 

 Actìnia denlicidosa, which is probably identical with it. Milne-Ed- 

 wards (1857) doubtfully refers Lesueur's species to the genus Discosoma 

 and Andres (1883) mentions it as a doubtful species of Corynactis. 

 Its habit, in sand among marine plants, hardly suggests an affinity 

 with Corynactis, and the brightness of its coloration seems to preclude 

 its reference to S. anemone. It seems to me that Lesueur's descri- 

 ption indicates its identity with Duerden's H. anemone, the correct 

 name l'or that species being, accordingly, Homostichanthus denticu- 

 losus (Lsr.) Duerden. 



Fam. RHODACTIDAB. 



Carlgren (1900 and 1900a) has merged this family in the Discoso- 

 midae on the basis of the many structural resemblances which its 

 members present to Discosoma (*), but it would seem that the existence, 

 of distinct marginai tentacles of quite different forni from the disk 

 tentacles and separated from them by a naked area of the disk forms 

 a suitable distinction, especially since the marginai processes are 

 apparently structures quite distinct from tentacles. 



Genus Rieordea Duch. Mich. 



I found a single specimen of A*, florida in the Turin collection, in 

 a bottle with specimens of Zoanihus Anduziì. It had no accompanying 

 label and accordingly does not present any special interest hearing 

 ou the identifìcation of Duchassaing and Michelotti 's types. It re- 

 sembles the individuals described by Duerden (1900) and myself (1889). 



(*) A* regards the use of this generic name, Ehrenberg long ago (1832) 

 pointed out that Oken (1816) had already employed the term Discosomus for 

 a genus of reptilia and suggested the use of Discostoma for the actinian 

 genus, a suggestion which has heen adopted by Verrill (1869 and 1869a) 

 and to a certain extent by Carlgren (1900 and I869a), It may be pointed out, 

 however, tbat in 1830 de Blainville proposed the name Actinodiscus for 

 Lenckart's genus and that, consequfintly is the name by which it should de 

 knowu 



