A. EF. Verrill—The Bermuda Islands; Coral Reefs. 265 
Grubé,* who first restricted the genus, placed under Cribrina 
three species: C. bellis, C. effeeta and C. carciniapodos (=palliata). 
All these were included in Cribrina by Ehrenberg, and all conform 
to his definition of the genus, in being perforate. Adamsia was 
established for the last of these in 1840, and effwta is included in 
the same genus by many, thus leaving be///s as the sole type, which 
had already been the type of Cereus (1815). C. effeta, however, 
belongs to the genus Calliactis, proposed by me in 1864, but not 
deemed sufficiently distinct from Adamsia by many writers. 
Neither can I agree with him in uniting Hvactis and Bunodosoma 
to Bunodactis. If that should be done, however, Hvactis must be 
adopted as the name of the larger genus. But its type, & artemisia, 
is peculiar in having distinctly ectacmzous tentacles,—a remarkable 
character for this family, and as good as most generic characters. 
There is also good reason to believe that it has numerous definite 
perforations in the upper part of its column, as stated in Dana’s 
Report, 1846, through which streams of water can be ejected in life, 
though MeMurrich did not find them in his strongly contracted spe- 
cimens. Pores known to exist in other species cannot be discovered 
in similar material by sections hardened out of all natural conditions. 
As for Bunodosoma, the non-adhesive verruce, which differ his- 
tologically from those of Bunodactis, afford a sufficient generic 
character. 
Linn.) as the type, which would be perfectly logical if the previous application 
or restriction of the name by Grubé could be ignored. Both these restrictions 
of the name not only had priority over that of MeMurrich, but they, unlike his, 
were in accordance with the ordinary rules of nomenclature, providing, of 
course, that the name is to be retained at all. 
My own view of it, many years ago (1864), when I first definitely restricted 
Cereus (Oken, 1815) to bellis, as its unquestionable type (which Haddon and 
most others now admit was correct), was that Cribrina, after having been 
restricted to the same group by Grubé, as he had the right to do, should be 
regarded as a synonym of Cereus and therefore should be dropped from the 
system. i still believe that this is the best and most logical course to take, and 
it is in accordance with the usual rules of nomenclature. 
The only other thing to do, so far as I can see, is to adopt the genus with 
polypus as the type, as Haddon has done, in place of Adamsia and Calliactis of 
previous writers, At any rate, McMurrich’s recent action, in ignoring Haddon’s 
more explicit restriction, and applying the name in a totally different sense, 
cannot be sustained, for it violates rules of nomenclature universally approved. 
* Grubé, A. E. Actinien, Echinodermen und Wiirmer des Adriatischen und 
Mittelmeers, p. 12, Konigsberg, 1840. 
