92 G Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-1918 



species. He described his thing as the size of the last joint of a finger, sordid, 

 rough, with a subcoriaceous tunic. Such a description could not possibly apply 

 to this soft and smooth species, which is not in the least subcoriaceous. It 

 would apply better to a Phellia or to Actinia digitata, and other local species 

 available for him, but it would be mere guesswork to say what species he had 

 in view. 



European writers, who have had the best opportunities, have not been 

 able to agree as to this question. Moreover, aside from this uncertainty, most 

 modern writers have rejected most of the Linnaean names of actinians on account 

 of their obscenity or indecency. Prof. McMurrich (1910) tried to identify 

 this species by means of the earlier works loosely quoted by Linnaeus, but that 

 is not conclusive. The figures referred to usually represent rudely more than 

 one species, and none agree with his descriptions. 



European writers have given the name senilis to at least four very diverse 

 species. Many have applied it to Urticina crassicornis, e.g. Cuvier, Brugiere, 

 Fabricius, Blainville, Lamarck, etc. Martens, 1838, used it for Cereus bellis 

 or pedunculatus. Macri (1778) identified it with Anemonia sulcata. Adams 

 applied it to dianthus; Ehrenberg to coriacea, etc. 



All this confusion shows the impossibility of fixing the name, even if it 

 were not otherwise objectionable. It should be forgotten or ignored, like the 

 generic name used by Linnseus in 1761, and by some others of that period, for 

 species of Actinia. Their indecent names were usually the Latinized forms of 

 vulgar names used by fishermen, some of which are still in use among the fisher- 

 men of our own coasts, for similar things. 



Metridium dianthus? (See above p. 89 G). 



The specimen mentioned above as undergoing fission is placed under this 

 species with some doubt, partly on account of its apparently larger tentacles 

 and the peculiar areolation of its body-wall. It is very strongly contracted, 

 about an inch in diameter, and half as high, and subconical in form. It does 

 not show the tentacles externally. Its outer integument is irregularly rough- 

 ened or vermiculated by minute broken transverse and longitudinal wrinkles. 

 In life, according to the note accompanying the example, it was red. It has 

 scattered cinclidffi, from which a few broken acontia protruded. It has a distinct 

 parapet and ribbed capitulum. It has two well separated disks and mouths, 

 and two complete sets of tentacles. Not wishing to destroy the single specimen 

 I have made only a superficial examination of its internal structure by partial 

 sections. Its state of preservation is not suitable for a positive identification 

 of the genus or species, but it seems to be Metridium dianthus. 



The wall of the body is thin, but tough and not lubricous. No suckers are 

 visible. The tentacles are rather larger than usual in preserved Metridium, in 

 a similar state of contraction. They are entirely retracted and much com- 

 pressed in flattened forms. No acontia were observed inside, except those 

 lodged in the cinclidse. 



The sphincter muscle is strong, mesodermal, nearly round in transverse 

 sections. Mesenteries toward the base are in about 96 pairs. There are about 

 twelve pairs of wider and mostly perfect mesenteries; those of the third cycle 

 are well developed; those of the fifth cycle very small. All or nearly all of the 

 mesenteries bear gonads. The longitudinal muscle is definite and well-developed 

 in the larger mesenteries, and placed near the middle. There is considerable 

 irregularity in the mesenteries above the middle of the stomodffium, due to the 

 fission. It was taken by F. Johansen at Station 41, in Bernard harbour, 

 Dolphin and Union strait, Northwest Territories, in 10 meters, on a bottom of 

 sandy mud, July 20, 1915. 



