Alcyonaria g 13 



stalk was 17i inches. He gave the average length of 36 specimens as 5 feet 

 6J inches. 



Usually in well preserved specimens, the oblique rows are closely crowded 

 together or in contact, but this is due to strong contraction. In life they are 

 more or less separate and more erect. They are arranged chevron^vise, and 

 the rows nearly meet in front. The siphonozooids are in two, long narrow 

 streaks on the opposite side of the rachis, grouped into open clusters, opposite 

 the base of each row of polyps. Others occur more or less in lateral lines on 

 the front side. 



The polyps appear to arise directly from the rachis, without being united 

 even mto rudimentary "wings," and their summits, in the specimens I have 

 seen, seem to be simple, or but faintly bilobed, not acutely bilobed nor armed 

 with projecting spicules, as in true Balticina. Spicules appear to be lacking 

 or very few. Nutting states that the caUcles have two feeble teeth in those 

 he examined, and that the calicles are united at their bases by "rudimentary 

 band-Hke pinnae". This was not apparent in the examples that I have seen. 

 He found no spicules in the cahcles, or tentacles. This, if correct, would make 

 this a genus distinct from Balticina and Pavonaria. 



The rachis on the back or siphonozoidal side is swollen and strongly convex, 

 when well preserved. 



This notable species was pretty fully described and figured by Mr. Stearns 

 in August, 1873, (op. cit.) when the soft parts first became known. The bare 

 axis had been noticed, both in America and England, before that time, and 

 various opinions had been expressed as to its nature. 



Dr. Phillip Slater had exhibited specimens at the meeting of the British 

 Association, in 1872, and he supposed that they were the axial supports of 

 some unknown fish. Dr. J. E. Gray, of the British Museum, in 1872 referred 

 it to his previously proposed genus Osteocella, based on an Australian naked axis, 

 (perhaps of a Pennatula or Pteroides), but he was in doubt whether it belonged 

 to a fish or to a Pennatulid. It was also discussed by Dr. James Blake (Proc, 

 Cal. Acad. Sci., July 17, 1871); by Moseley (Nature, vi, Sept., 1872); by White- 

 aves (Nat. Hist. Soc, Montreal, 1872); W. H. Dall (Amer. Nat. vol. VII, p. 488, 

 1873); Verrill (Amer. Jour. Sci. vol. VII, p. 70, note, 1873); Mr. Stearns in 

 February, 1873 (Proc. Cal. Acad.) referred the bare axis provisionally to the 

 Umbellularidse. Dr. Blake thought it more likely belonged to the sponges. 

 Prof. KoUiker referred the axis to the Pennatulacea, as did Verrill, in 1874. 



The name Osteocella septentrionalis, given by Gray in 1872, to the bare 

 axis, with only a few words of description, should be regarded as having no 

 standing, for the remarks made about it would not distinguish it from the axis 

 of various other genera and species of Pennatulacea. Clearly it could not be 

 congeneric with his type of Osteocella, whatever that may be. Even up to this 

 time, its exact generic position is more or less doubtful. Personally I have 

 never had an opportunity to microscopically study a well-preserved specimen, 

 and cannot say with certainty whether Verrillia is or is not a valid genus. Mr. 

 Stearns did not give the microscopic structure, nor state whether it had spicules 

 or not. Professor Nutting thinks it is identical with Balticina finmar- 

 chica of the North Atlantic' This I do not believe for the numerous specimens 

 of the latter that I have studied all had two prominent cahcinal teeth filled 

 with spicules and also spicules in the tentacles. The cahcles were united into 

 obvious wings not present in this species. 



All the earlier specimens came from Burrard inlet, on which the city of 

 Vancouver is situated, and Dr. W. H. Dall has recorded specimens from the 

 Shumagin islands, where, he saj^s, it is troublesome to the cod fishermen by 

 entangling their lines. No doubt it occurs all along the coast of British Columbia 



' Nutting has described a form from off Japan, in 66 to 428 fathoms, that he thinks is identical with 

 this and with Balticina finmarchica. It appears to have no spicules in the polyps or stalk. (Proc. U.S. 

 Nat. Mus. vol. 43, p. 38, 1912). It certainly is not B. finmarchia and probably not V. blakei. 



