— 20 — 



of dubius. induzii diflfers froin dubius in the sanie respects, except 

 as regards the nature of the coenenchyme. 



Z. nymphaeus (Lsr.). 



Two colonies of this fora occurred, the accompanying label of Du- 

 chassaing reading Mammìllifera nymphaea var. St. Thomas, while that 

 of De Filippi read MammUlifera nymphea {sic) Duch. The polyps arise 

 from a piate of coenenchyme and were closely set, They measured 

 0.4 _ 0.7 cm. in height and had a diameter of 0.3 — 0.5 cm. 



The sphincter has the forni which I have already described in the 

 form which I identified with this species (1896). The mesenteries were 

 sixty-eight in number. 



I have no doubt as to the identity of my nymphaeus with that of 

 Duchassaing and Michelotti, but there are not sufflcient data for de- 

 termining with certainty whether or not the lattei- is identical with 

 Lesueur's nymphaea. Indeed Lesueur's distinction of his auricula and 

 nymphaea seems to rest entirely on colouration, since, as Verrill 

 (1900) has pointed out, the mesenteries are shown in Lesueur's figure 

 to be sixty-one, or more probably sixty-two as one of the microdi- 

 rectives is* unrepresented in the figure. Consequently the number of 

 tentacles was probably sixty-two instead of from twenty-six to thirty 

 as Lesueur states. Colouration is recognized to be a very uncertain 

 guide for distinguishing Zoanthids, and there seems to be reason l'or 

 the supposition that nymphaea and aurìada may be identical, in 

 which case the latter narae would be the proper appellation for the 

 species. The identity may, however, be left open for the present. 

 Duerden's pulchellus certainly seems to be distinct. 



Finally there were at Turin two colonies of a forni which was ac- 

 corapanied by labels, both by Duchassaing and De Filippi, reading Zoan- 

 thus fj (he re ulatus. They were certainly not the Z. tuberculatus 

 described by Duchassaing and Michelotti, but resembled in general 

 appearance ' Z. nymphaeus. Their state of preservatali, however, 

 prevented any examination of them and their identity with that forni 

 must remain uncertain. There has apparently been a confusion of 

 labels. 



So far the results of my studies of the Turin specimens, but before 

 concluding this paper I wish to make some remar ks upon some forms 

 described from the West Indies by Griffith Hughes and Hill. Hughes 

 in L743 described from Barbadaoes a form which was later redescribed 

 bv KHis and Solander (1780) as Actinia calendula, and ìt has beeu 

 included in the lists of Actinians given by Gmelin, Lamouroux, de 

 Biainyille and Andivs, the }aat bestowing upon it the generic terni 



