V. >07. 6 



" intended to include in or exclude from his genus Eune- 

 " phthya. The genus Duva was well described and 

 " figured by Koren and Danielssen in 1883, and for that 

 " reason we should be perfectly justified in retaining the 

 " genus Duva and ignoring Verrill's genus Eunephthya 

 . "altogether. However, as Kiikenthal has on grounds of 

 " precedence adopted Verrill's generic name and has given 

 ' ' in his paper an elaborate diagnosis of the species included 

 "in this genus, I have decided with some hesitation to 

 "call the species Eunephthya rosea. The most perfect 

 " specimen is 60 mm. in height and 45 mm. in greatest 

 " breadth. It seems to approach most closely the de- 

 " scription of Kukenthal's E. rosea var. umbellata. The 

 "colour in spirit is white. A smaller incomplete speci- 

 ' * men in the same bottle appears to have been dead when 

 " taken and is of a darker grey colour. The specimen 

 " from off Achill Island is only 26 mm. in height, and is 

 " not so compact in growth as the other specimens, but 

 " an examination of the spicules and polyps does not 

 ' ' afford any substantial reasons for giving it a distinct 

 " specific name. 



" A feature of some interest in connection with these 

 " specimens is the great depth of water in which they 

 " were found. The specimens of E. rosea, forma typica of 

 " Kiikenthal were obtained from the coast of Norway at 

 " depths of 80-100 metres, but the depth of his specimens 

 " from Spitzbergen of E. rosea var. umbellata is not 

 " known. The various varieties of the closely allied 

 " species E..spitzbergensis are mostly found in deep water, 

 " the variety violacea (D. flava. Dan.) having been found 

 " at a depth of 1,187 metres. 



"It is probable that, as Kiikenthal himself suggests, 

 " the three species E. rosea, E. spitzbergensis, and E. 

 ' ' florida will ultimately be joined together as one species 

 " and that the united species will then be found to have 

 "a wide geographical and bathymetrical distribution. 

 " The larger specimen from S.E. 223 was a female. In 

 ' the larger ova no germinal vesicle nor any trace of nu- 

 ' clear structure can be seen in any of the sections. This 

 ' is apparently the same stage in the history of the ova 

 ' as that described by myself (1899) and Hill (1905) for 

 ' Alcyonium, in w r hich the nucleus is dispersed or frag- 

 ' men ted. The presence of this stage in the ova within 

 ' the body of the parent zooid does not prove either that 

 ' the zooid s are viviparous or that the fertilisation is 

 ' effected before the discharge of the ova. It only proves 

 1 that the ova reach maturity before they are discharged. 

 1 As no definite sterrulae larvae nor any ova exhibiting 

 ' early stages of development were found it is not certain 

 ' that this deep-sea species is viviparous, but the sugges- 

 " tion these facts give is that the species is not vivi- 

 " parous." S. J. HICKSON. 



