— 21 — 



Petalactis, while de Blainville assigns it to bis genus Actinocereus. 

 Hughes description, which with a figure he repeats in his Naturai 

 Hystory of the Barbadoes (1750, p. 293, PI. XXIV, Fig. 1), is naturally 

 very imperfect, the gist of it being as follows. At the north end of 

 the island of Barbadoes there is a cave, the floor of which is a basin 

 of salt water about three feet in deptb. From a stone in this water 

 there appeared at ali seasons of the year yellow flowers with thick-set 

 distiuct petals. On the approach of any object to within two or three 

 inches, the flowers at once disappear into the stone, but reappear in 

 a few minutes if left undisturbed. On the top of the stone he also 

 fouud some blue flowers resembling the yellow one. In a foot-note, 

 referri ng to the yellow forni, he says that it greatly resembles the 

 flower of the marigold and that he thinks it is an uriica marina like 

 that described by Gesner. 



In this account one of the most striking features of which mention 

 is made is the rapid response to the approach of any object, a pheno- 

 menon never shown, to my knowledge, by any Actinian. On the other 

 hand it is very characteristic of the gorgeous sedentary annelids which 

 occur in blocks of coral in the West Indies ; these instantly retract 

 their branchia! corona when a shadow is thrown upon thein. The 

 entire description and the figure (*) given by Hughes answer much more 

 perfectly to a description of the Serpulid Pomatostegos than to that 

 of an Actinian, as will be evident to anyone who has observed the 

 annelids. Personali} - I ani quite convinced that Actinia calendula is 

 one of these Annelids and should therefore be obliterated from the 

 list of Actinian species. 



I believe, furthermore, that the two forms described by Hill (1752) 

 as Actinia tenlaculis versicoloribus and Actinia corpore venlricoso, 

 are also annelids. The description of the former certainly suggests 

 either a serpulid or a sabellid rather than an Actinian, and, while 

 bis account of the latter is not so convincing, it seems probable that 

 it too is an annelid. After the rlisparaging remarks in which Hill 

 indulged regarding Hughes' abilities to properly characterize forms 

 belonging to the group Actinia, his own confusion of Annelids and 

 Actinians seems almost a case of just retribution. 



(*) It is to be noted that the figure given by Ellis and Solander (PI. I. 

 Fig. 3) and copied by Rruguière represents ouly a portion of that of Hughes 

 and does not convey quite the sanie idea as the originiti. 



