ALCYONAUIA FROM SlJIQArOHE. 511^ 



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

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

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

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

 n,t the same time he disputed the interpretation of Havigny's 

 pliites, maintaining that Audouin had given the name Nephthea 

 cordlerii to the form, represented in Tab, 2. fig. 6, which Havigny 

 had intended to call Ammothee. Ehrenberg's view has been 

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

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

 chahrolii, represents the ty|)e of Savigny's genus Nephthee, while 

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

 A.vlresce'ihS. There can be no reasonable doubt with regard to 

 the authenticity of origin of the genus Nephthi/a, that is to say, 

 that the genus was based on the description of the species 

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

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

 many years, the name was changed to Lithop)hytum by Kukenthal 

 (1903), since that author found that Savigny's type species, 

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

 previously by Forskiil under the name Lithophyton arboreum ; in 

 deference to the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature 

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

 whether or not Ehrenberg was justified in disputing Audouin's 

 interpretation of Ta,b. 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 

 th(!mselves with descriptions by other authors. With this 

 (liHiculty in view. Professor Bourne very kindly had photogra,phs 

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

 figs. 5 (fe 6, in the Radcliflfe Library at Oxford. Prof. Hickson 

 lias given me permission to publish these figures in this paper, 

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

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

 PI, LXII. fig, 6. 



Ehrenberg (1834) distinguished Nepihthya from Ammothea by 

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

 says of Nephthya : — " poly pis in verrucas inermes retractilibus," 

 We see, then, that Ehrenberg recognised the distinction between 

 the genera. Nej^hthya a.nd LiiJurphytimi {Ammothea) which obtains 

 at the pre-sent (la,y, namely the jire.sence and absence of armed 

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

 Ehrenberg's definititm of Nephthya was recognised by Dana (1846), 

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

 l)a.niel.sseu (1887). The numerous new species described during 

 this period were distinguished by their authors, on the one hand 

 from Ammothea by tlie presence of a,rmed verruca), and on 

 the other from Hpongodes Less, by the comparatively slight 

 development of the spicules which formed the armament of 



