278 T. A. STEPHENSON 



includes two genera, Glyph operidiiim and Glypho- 

 stylum. In the first place Glyphoperidium seems 

 undoubtedly identical with Epiactis, and is here included 

 in that genus, with its two species, G. vas and G. bursa. 

 Moreover, the sub-family seems to have been erected as a result 

 of laying too much stress upon some apparently trivial 

 characters, especially connected with the actinopharynx. It 

 is hard to find any justification for such a sub-family, and it 

 is not adopted here. The other genus erected, Glypho- 

 stylum, seems more worthy of distinction, and although its 

 separateness is not very marked it is defined above, provi- 

 sionally at any rate. 



Antheomorpiie (Hertw., 1882, p. 80) seems barely if at all 

 distinguishable from G 3^ r o s t o m a . 



CoMACTis. C. f lagellif era, Hertw., 1882, p. 32, might 

 be almost anything. Dana's is probably Anemonia 

 sulcata. 



PoLYSTOMiDiuM (Hertw., 1882, p. 67) can hardly stand. The 

 stomidia seem to be the remains of torn-off tentacles and 

 the oesophageal openings probably ruptures (I have seen 

 the specimen). Of what genus it is a battered representa- 

 tive is another matter. 



Ilyanthopsis (Hertw., 1888, p. 13) has to lapse. I. longi- 

 filis, Hertw., is probably a Condylactis, and 

 I. elegans, Wass., is a Synhal curias (see p. 260). 

 Pax refers to I. longifilis in his 1910 paper, pp. 171, 

 173, &c., as probably C. passiflora. 



Myriactis (Haddon, 1888, p. 248) is not easily allocated. It 

 may be a Stichodactyline like R a d i a n t h u s , or it may 

 stand among the Actiniidae near Condylactis, but 

 there are not quite enough data to make a certainty of it. 



Gyractis (Boveri, 1893, p. 246) (see Haddon, 1898, p. 445) is 

 very near Bunodactis, if not absolutely identical A\-ith 

 it. The fact that it has no directives or siphonoglyphes 

 cannot keep it apart, these things are too much matters 

 of specific or individual idiosyncracy. The doubt about 



