232 NATURAL HISTORY BULLETIN. 



cess of the sphincter becomes of greater importance compared 

 with the remaining processes, forming a condition which leads, 

 through Liponema mu/tiftorum (Hertvvig, '82 and '88), which 

 I have elsewhere ('93) shown to be almost certainly a Bolo- 

 cera, to the typically circumscribed sphincter of B. -pollens. 



The occurrence of such a sphincter is of importance in deter- 

 mining the family affinities of Bolocera. As is well known, 

 Gosse in establishing the genus, assigned it to the family 

 Bunodidce and succeeding authors followed his example until 

 1891 when Carlgren, relying on the nature of the sphincter of 

 B. longicoru/s, transferred the genus to the Antheadae. In 

 1893 I proposed the establishment of the family Boloceridae, a 

 step which received the approbation of Carlgren ('93). 

 Recently, however, objections have been made to this family 

 by Kwietniewski ('96), who prefers to retain the genus among 

 the Antheadae. The occurence of the remarkably circum- 

 scribed sphincter of B. pollens renders this position untenable, 

 and the diffuse sphincter of B. brevicornh and B. longjcoruis 

 excluding the genus from the Bunodidaj, the recognition of a 

 special family for it seems to be necessary. 



Family PHYLLACTID/E. 



4. Asteractis expansa Duerden 

 Bahia Honda, Cuba; 26 specimens. 



A description of this species has been written by my friend, 

 Mr. Duerden, and will shortly be published with the necessary 

 figures. Mr. Duerden has kindly allowed me to see his manu- 

 script and has also sent me specimens for comparision with 

 those in this collection; there can be no question as to the 

 identity of the forms I have examined with those from Jamaica. 



Mr. Duerden considers the species a new one and refers it 

 to the genus Asteractis established by Verrill ('68). Accord- 

 ing to Verrill's definition the absence of verrucas is one of the 

 characteristics of this genus, and if this portion of the defini- 

 tion is to be retained the present species cannot be considered 

 an Asteractis, even though the fronds, as in A. bradleyi, are 



