272 A, FE. Verrill—The Bermuda Islands; Coral Reefs. 
specimens of the Bahama form can be studied its relations must 
remain uncertain. 
MeMurrich (op. cit., 1905) preferred to adopt neglecta as the name 
for the group of united forms, on the ground of priority. But the 
two names have the same date, Danc occurring on the earlier 
page (47). Moreover, McMurrich has shown (1905) that the type 
of the latter is alone preserved in Turin, which is an additional 
reason for retaining the latter name. Further, Dane was originally 
described from a more adult specimen, while neglecta was a younger 
form (about half an inch high). For all these reasons Dane should 
be preferred for the name, if the two forms be united. 
If it can be proved that Actinodactylus Boscii D. and M., 1850, 
is the young of Lebrunia, which is very doubtful, Actinodactylus 
(1850) has priority for the generic name, with A. Boscii as the 
type.* 
Epicystis crucifera (Les.) Ehr. Cross-barred Anemone. Plate xxxii, fig. 1; 
Plate xxxiia, fig. 1. 
Actinia crucifera Lesueur, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., i, pl. i, p. 174, 1817. 
Epicystis crucifera Ehrenberg, Corall. Roth. Meer., p. 44, 1854. 
Phymanthus cruciferus Andres, Le Attinie, p. 501, i883. 
* Actinodactylus was defined by Duch. and Mich. as having the (5) branched 
gills alternating with the (15) simple tentacles in a simple marginal row. The 
figure reminds one of the terminal portion of a siphon-tube of some bivalve 
mollusea, or of the tentacles of a holothurian, rather than of an actinian. If an 
actinian, the branched gills are probably not in the.same row with the tentacles. 
In the second named species, A. neglectus, 1860, there were 30 simple tentacles, 
so that both were probably pentamerous. Both were probably very young 
forms, and the descriptions are very imperfect and may be erroneous. A more 
careful search for the young forms of West Indian actinians would easily settle 
this and many other similar doubtful points. Neither of these forms is preserved 
in the Turin Museum. The very young forms of L. neglecta described by Duer- 
den, and considered by him the same as Hoplophoria coralligens Wilson, differ 
much from the type of Actinodactylus. 
The Hoplophoria had 48 hexamerous tentacles, with four large, prominent, 
- simple, but not stalked acrorhagi, much as in the young of Asteractis. Although 
having much more numerous tentacles than either form of Actinodactylus, the 
acrorhagi show no signs of branching, while in the latter, with but 15 tentacles, 
they are already divided into numerous branches at the end of a slender stalk, 
longer than the tentacles. Evidently the latter is in ‘no way connected with 
Hoplophoria, whatever its relations to Lebrunia may be. Hoplophoria, aithough 
evidently young, had small ovaries on some of the primary septa. 
The young of Asteractis flosculifera also resemble Wilson’s species, for it has 
simple, or bilobed, elongated acrorhagi or actinobranchs, somewhat as in the 
latter, but much smaller. (See page 267.) 
