738 MR. J. p. MCMURKICH O^ THE SYSTEMATIC 



observation Ims not been confirmed by others (Duerden, Pax) 

 who have studied that species, that a qiiite distinct though feeble 

 mesogloeal sphincter occurs in A. pallida. In the airangenient 

 of the mesenteries the Aiptasias agree with the Metridiina3, so 

 that their separation from that subfamily seems to be artificial 

 and unnecessary. 



S. lucioi agiees with the majority of the Aiptasias in lacking 

 a mesoglcBal sphincter and in the possession of not more than six 

 pairs of perfect mesenteries, and, with the Aiptasias, should be 

 assigned to the subfamily Metridiinae. That means that it is 

 not entitled to the generic term Sagartioj. When Gosse (1855) 

 established the genus Sagariia he included in it all the forms 

 known to him to possess acontia, with the exception of Adamsia 

 palliata, which had already been assigned to a special genus by 

 Forbes. In the list of the forms belonging to the new genus, 

 Gosse placed viduata (efosta) first, and it might therefore be 

 taken as the type species, but later, in the 'Actinologia Britannica' 

 (1860), Gosse proposed the subdivision of Sagartia into a number 

 of subgenera, retaining the original name for a group of forms 

 of which miniata is the type, while viduata is referred with 

 troglodytes (undata) and parasitica (polypus) to a subgenus 

 Gylista. This complicates matters ; for miniata and the other 

 forms that Gosse associated with it are, apparently, referable to 

 the older genus Cereus, and if this be the case Sagartia becomes 

 merely a synonym, unless viduata (effceta) be accepted as its 

 type species. This seems the proper thing to do, for otherwise 

 the confusion that now exists in Actinian nomenclature would 

 become still worse confounded. 



Sagartia viduata, or, to give it its more correct i\a.me,S.effo2ta'L., 

 has no fosse and a well-developed mesogloeal sphincter ; my pre- 

 parations from specimens collected at Plymouth do not allow of 

 certainty as to the arrangement of the mesenteries, though the 

 indications were that more than six pairs were perfect, but 

 Carlgren (1893) has shown that this is the case. Sagartia, then, 

 as is seemly, belongs to the subfamily Sagartiinse, and our 

 S. hocice cannot be referred to it. What, then, is the proper 

 generic term for this species? It has some resemblance to 

 Jiptasia, but, lacking the characteristic double row of permanent 

 cinclides of that genus, it cannot well be included in it. It has 

 already been pointed out that there is a strong probability, 

 indeed, I believe it is more than a probability, that it is identical 

 with the A. chrysosplenium of Cocks, and that form Gosse 

 recognized as a Sagartia, referring it to a special subgenus 

 Chrysoela. If my belief as to its identity is well founded, 

 S. hocice should • be known as Chrysoela chrysosplenium (Cocks) 

 Gosse. At all events it is not a Sagartia, nor can it be assigned 

 to any of the genera now recognized. 



