— 12 — 



Genus Orini» Duch Mich. 



A single specimen of 0. torpida, so labelled apparenti v by De Filippi, 

 occurs in the collection. It had already been studied by Carlgren, 

 who correctly assigned it (1900) to a dose afflnity with Rhodactis 

 and Ricordea The « sucoirs » ofthe disk, which represent tentacles, 

 were rather large crateriform structures, whose inargins were more 

 or less tuberculate as described by Duchassaing and Michelotti (1860). 

 Some seem to be perforated, opening into the body cavity, but no 

 orifice could be distinguished macroscopically in others. Among those 

 situated more peripherally were some which were vesicular or tu 

 berculiforni, lacking the terminal orifice so far as could be perceived 

 by a macroscopic examination. 



Pam. PHYMANTHIDAE. 



Epicystis crucifera (Lsr) Ehr. 



A single specimen of this was contained in the collection, and was 

 labelled by De Filippi, Cereus inflatus Duch., St. Thomas. Carlgren 

 from his examination of the specimen camp to the conclusion that it 

 was probably Phymanthus crucifer and tbere is no reason for doubting 

 the correctness of this view. 



The Actinia crucifera of Lesueur was referred by Ehrenberg (1832) 

 to a new genus Epicystis, and, according to the rules of priori ty, this 

 terni should be employed instead of Phymanthus established by Milne- 

 Edwards and Haime in 1852. Most authors have, unfortunately, em- 

 ployed the latter name for the genus, Verrill (1896 and 1900) alone 

 using the correct one. He, howerer, fìnds a generic distinction between 

 E. crucifera and E. loligo, and retains for the latter the name Phy- 

 manthus; for this there seems to be no good reason. 



Verrill (1900) also distinguishes between those individuai of E. 

 crucifera in which the transverse thickenings of the tentacles are 

 well developed and those in which they are feeble or apparently 

 lacking, regarding the former as the true E. crucifera, while the 

 latter the identifies with Lesueur 's Actinia osculi fera. Duerden has 

 found that the development of the transverse thickenings on the ten- 

 tacles varies considerably in different individuals of crucifera, and, 

 since Verrill 's two forms agree in ali other particulars, it seems un- 

 necessary to regard them as different species. As to Lesueur 's A. 

 oseuliferu, it is difficult to discover in his description of it any simi- 

 larity to an Epicystis. On the contrary it seems exceedingly probable 

 that it is the forni later described by Duchassaing and Michelotti as 

 Actinotryx sancii-thomae, a forni properly referred to the genus Rho- 





