Havpon—The Actiniaria of Torres Straits. 495 
Actinostephanus Heckeli, Kwietn. (I. ¢., p. 23). 
Besides the differences mentioned in the generic description the transverse 
musculature of the mesenteries is better developed than in the last species ; 
otherwise the two forms are closely allied. 
I suspect that the genera Acremodactyla and Actinostephanus are one and the 
same with Actinodendron. The question as to the distinctiveness of the specific 
forms must be left for the present. 
Family.—Paymanrnip®. Andr. 
Stichodactylinze, with a column which is usually smooth below and verrucate 
above ; the oral disk is not of much greater diameter than the column; marginal 
“tentacles” with lateral tubercles, or more or less complicated frondose appen- 
pages ; the tentacles on the oral disk are small, wart-like, and arranged in radial 
rows ; sphincter muscle very feeble, diffuse, endodermal, or absent; at least 
twelve pairs of perfect mesenteries, all of which, including the two directives, are 
fertile. 
At present there are only two genera in this family—Phymanthus and Thela- 
ceros; the only distinction between them being, so far as I can make out, that 
the column of the latter is quite smooth. It is possible that a distinction will 
subsequently be made between those forms with tubercles and those with branched 
appendages on the ‘ tentacles.” Ihave spoken of the marginal prolongations 
as “tentacles.” I admit this may be illogical, since I am inclined to regard the 
somewhat similar processes in the Actinodendridz as prolongations of the oral 
disk ; but I will leave this point for future discussion. 
PHYMANTHUS, M. Edw. 
Phymanthidz, with the upper portion of the column provided with longitudinal 
rows of verruce, and with a very feeble diffuse endodermal sphincter muscle, or 
none at all. 
This genus was erected by Milne-Edwards (1857, p. 297) for the Actinodendron 
loligo of Ehrenberg. This species has subsequently been well described and figured 
by Klunzinger (1877, p. 87) ; but the figure drawn by him (pl. vi., fig. 7) differs in 
so many details from the previously unpublished drawing by Ehrenberg (pl. vii., 
