Actinaria G 109 



U. crassicornis, under the name of Rhodactinia crassicornis, has been recorded 

 from the Antarctic by J. A. Clubb (National Antarctic Exped., Nat History 

 Vol. IV, Coalenterata, p. 9, 1908). 



As in other cases, the external characters of the living specimens are 

 not known. Therefore I consider the identification as extremely doubtful. 

 U. crassicornis, so far as known, is not a deep sea species, and on our coast it 

 has not been found much south of Long Island, -in the extensive series of dred- 

 gings made all along the U.S. coast and in the West Indies by the -"Blake," 

 "Alabatross," and various other vessels. 



Therefore, I would propose to call the Antarctic species Urticina antarctica. 

 As for the genus Rhodactinia, it is a plain synonym of Tealia Gosse. But the 

 latter is a synonym of Urticina Ehr., 1834. 



Rhodactinia had no definite status in nomenclature until I personally 

 described it in 1864. Agassiz merely used the name without any description. 

 and without reference to any described species. He spoke of it merely as a 

 large red actinian. There are several other large red actinians from the same 

 vicinity. I personally knew it only from having seen the original specimen. 

 It was not a large one. It was certainly U. crassicornis, as now known. 



I definitely restricted Urticina Ehr. to this type in 1864, and named A. 

 crassicornis 1 (Mull.) as the type species. It was the first of the species referred 

 to that group by Ehrenberg, and it also agrees with his diagnostic description. 

 He did not quote Rapp's figure to illustrate it, but said that Rapp had confused 

 two species. 



Various species formerly referred to Urticina by me and others, when theii 

 internal structure was unknown, have since been found to belong to other 

 genera. Of the East American species some belong to Actinauge, viz.: nodosa = 

 rugosa Ver. and A. longcornis; nexilis to Stephanauge. See above. 



My U. perdix, a very large, handsome, variegated, deep water species, is a 

 Paractis, subgenus Archactis Verrill, 1899. 



U. consors Verrill (1882), which is a large handsome, light red, or flesh- 

 coloured, deep-sea species, living as a commensal on the back of a hermit-crab, 

 is a Sagartia (S. consors). It has acontia and scattered cinclidse; its mesenteries 

 are regularly hexamerous in four cycles; six pairs are perfect and sterile. See 

 figure in Bull. Mus. Comp. ZooL, Vol. XI, p. 49, PL VIII, fig. 4, 1885. 



The sphincter muscle is mesogloeal, strong, and divided into two portions; 

 the upper is elliptical or fusiform in section. Mesenterial muscles are thin; 

 two pairs of directives are attached to downward extensions or siphonoglyphs 

 at the base of the stomodseum. Mesoglcea is firm; ectoderm is thin, soft, and 

 easily destroyed in preserved specimens. Cinclidae are mostly above the middle 

 and hard to see. 



U. callosa Verrill is a large, firm, sub-coriaceous, red or orange-coloured, 

 somewhat verrucose species, from deep water, with very many short tentacles. 

 It was made the type of the new genus, Actinostola Ver., in 1882, in the family 

 Paractidce. According to McMurrich, who examined the type, the genus Dysactis 

 of Hertwig, 1882, is identical with Actinostola (op. cit., 1901, p. 209). The 

 name Dysactis was used by me in 1864, for a very different genus. Therefore 

 Actinostola must be used. 



has referred Ehrenberg's species to A. equina Linn., but that opinion seems to me unsound. 

 Ehrenberg quoted A. crassicornis Gmelin and Lamarck, with doubt, as synonyms, and he described 

 equina (as mesembryanthemum') on another page (p. 36) from personal observation. His crassicornis was, 

 perhaps, U. coriacea (Cuv.). He gives its size as half a foot, tentacles short and thick. MoMurnch has 

 suggested papillosa Ehr. as the type (=crassicornis). This, he thinks, might avoid any doubt. 



