110 ACTINIANS FROM THE BAHAMA ISLANDS 



Family RHODACTID^ 

 Ricordea florida Duch. and Mich, i860 

 Synonym: Heteranthus floridus (D. & M.) McMurrich. 1889. 



In my paper on the Bahama Actiniaria I described this form as a 

 species of Klunzinger's genus Heteranthus, disregarding the name 

 bestowed upon it by Duchassaing and Michelotti on the ground that 

 the characters assigned to the genus by those authors were specific 

 rather than generic, and therefore insufficient, while Klunzinger's 

 definition of his genus was quite adequate. Although this criticism 

 still seems to me to be just, yet, nevertheless, according to the strict 

 laws of priority, Duchassaing and Michelotti's name is the one which 

 should be employed, and I take this opportunity of correcting my error 

 in the matter. 



Attention may also be called to the probability of the genus Ho- 

 mactis established by Verrill ('69), being identical with Klunzinger's 

 Heteranthus, so that it too has a claim prior to Heteranthus, the 

 latter genus not having been established until 1877. Ricordea is, 

 however, prior to both, and therefore should supplant them. 



Family ZOANTHID^ 



Zoanthus njmiphaeus (Les.) 



Synonyms: Mammillifera nymphcBa Lesueur. 181 7. 

 Palythoa nymphosa Dana. 1849. 

 Palythoa (Mammothoa) nymphosa Andres. 1883. 



In 181 7 Lesueur established the genus Mammillifera for the recep- 

 tion of two Zoanthids (which he named M. auricula and M. nymphcea), 

 and characterized the genus as containing those forms which possess 

 " a large cuticular expansion, serving as the base of numerous animals, 

 which, when contracted, assume the form of mammae." Andres (^S^) 

 unites this genus with Palythoa, making it a subgenus for which he 

 proposes the name Mammothoa, but this is evidently an error, since 

 he characterized the genus Palythoa as having sandy incrustations in 

 the column walls, while Lesueur distinctly gives it to be understood that 

 his species of Mammillifera have fleshy walls. Erdmann in '85 

 revived Lesueur's genus, though, as Haddon and Shackleton (^91) 

 have pointed out, it is questionable if the form he referred to the genus 



