ALCYOXARIA FROM SIXGAPORE. 511 



to wliom foil the task of describing >Savigny's plates, believed 

 that Savigny's Tab. 1. fig. 8 represented Aminothee, and that 

 Tab. 2. figs, 5 & 6 represented Nephthee. The genus JSfepliihea, 

 as the author wrote it, was recognised by Ehrenberg (1834) ; but 

 at the same time he disputed the interpretation of Havigny's 

 pliites, miiintaining that Auilouin hnd given the name NeplttJiea 

 cordierii to the form, represented in Tal). 2. fig. 6, which Savigny 

 had intended to call Amnioihce. Ehrenbei-g's view has been 

 accepted by all subsequent authors, and it is now generally agreed 

 thiit Tab. 2. fig. 5, correctly designated by Audouin Nephthea 

 chahrolil, represents the type of Savigny's genus Neplithee^ while 

 Tab. 2. fig. (3 represents his type of the genus Amviothee, namely 

 ^1. virescens. There can be no reasonable doubt with regard to 

 the authenticity of origin of the genus Nephihya^ that is to say, 

 that the genus was based on the description of the species 

 N. chabrolli, which is figured in Savigny's Tab. 2. fig. 5. In the 

 case of Ammothee, or Ammothea as the genus was known for 

 many years, the name was changed to Liihojphytum by Kiikenthal 

 (1903), since that author found that Savign}^^ type species, 

 ^-1. virescens, is identical with a form described forty-two years 

 previously by Forskiil under the name Lithophyton arhoreimi : in 

 deference to the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature 

 the older name must be retained. Thus it is of little moment 

 whether or not Ehrenberg was justified in disputing Audouin's 

 interpretation of Tab. 2. fig. 6. 



Copies of Savigny's plates are extremely scarce, so that it is 

 not always possible for the research worker to examine the 

 original figures ; many have probably been compelled to content 

 themselves with descriptions by other authors. With this 

 ditficulty in view. Professor Bourne very kindly had photographs 

 taken for Professoi- Hickson from Savigny's plates, Tab. 2. 

 figs. 5 ck 6, in the Radclifte Libi^ary at Oxford. Prof. Hickson 

 has given me permission to publish these figures in this pajDer, 

 so that they may be readily accessible to all workers on the 

 Nephthyidre. They are reproduced in PI. LXI. figs. 1-5 and 

 PL LXII. fig. 6. 



Ehrenberg (1834) distinguished Xephthya from Ammothea by 

 the prominence of the polyp-spicules in the former genus, for he 

 says oi JVephthya : — "polypis in verrucas inermes retractilibus." 

 We see, then, that Ehrenberg recognised the distinction between 

 the genera Xephthya and Lithophytum {Ammothea) which obtains 

 at the present day, namely the presence and absence of armed 

 polyps (polyps with " Stiitzblindel ") in these genera respectively. 

 Ehrenberg 's definition of Xejyhthya was recognised by Dana (1846), 

 Milne-Eduards (1857), Klunzinger (1877), Studer (1887), and 

 Danielssen (1887). The numerous new species described during 

 this period were distinguished l)y their authors, on the one hand 

 from Ammothea by the presence of armed verruca;, and on 

 the other from Spongodes Less, by the comparatively slight 

 development of the spicules which formed the armament of 



