CLASSIFICATION OF ACTINIARIA 533 
§M. The Minyadidae. 
Probably unrelated forms have been placed here. There is 
little evidence of their relationship to each other, and there 
are few data altogether. It may later be found that there 
is no need for a Minyadidae, and that the contained forms 
may be allocated to different families as floating members. 
One form at least, Nautactis olivacea, Les., seems to be 
some sort of Stichodactyline. At the moment only Sticho- 
phora torpedo, Bell, can be defined, so far as I am aware, 
and that not fully ; but for this form there seems to be justi- 
fication for a family Minyadidae, even if it is not very clear, 
based on the definitely float-like character of the base taken 
with other things. At the present time it seems inopportune 
to say much about it, with the provision that so far there is no 
evidence of its ability to sustain higher than family rank, 
and it seems to fit in near the Actiniidae. If further details 
come to light—if, for instance, S. torpedo should have no 
ciliated tracts on its filaments—the position of the family 
will need reconsideration. 
§N. The Stichodactylines. 
Here I have no suggestions to offer (save that already made 
about the Corallimorphidae and Discosomidae), but am pre- 
pared to accept fully the families defined by Carlgren in his 
‘ Ostafrikanische Aktinien’, 1900, and (Aurelianidae) in 
a smaller paper on Stichodactylines, also in 1900. These 
families seem to be excellently based and to represent relation- 
ships very naturally. They are the Stoichactidae, Thalassian- 
thidae, Actinodendridae, Phymanthidae, Aurelianidae, Heteran- 
thidae, and Homostichanthidae. They entirely supersede 
other arrangements, including Duerden’s division of the group 
into Homodactylinae and Heterodactylinae; they will be 
defined in Part III. 
There are a few points worth noting about the Stichodacty- 
lines in general, excluding always the Corallimorphidae and 
Discosomidae (this latter in the sense taken by Carlgren, 
