Actinaria g 107 



Prof. McMurrich, op. cit., 1910, has erred, I believe, in adopting the specific 

 name felina, as from Linnseus, for this species. It certainly is not his species, if 

 his five-word description (1767) be taken into account. 



It has no "glande muricata;" nor are the words "striata -laevis" applicable 

 to this species. His reference to Easter's figures should not be taken very 

 seriously for he was often very loose in his references to the figures of earher 

 writers in various groups of animals, and at that time very few recognizable 

 figures of actiniae existed. Linnaeus himself had only the slightest and most 

 superficial knowledge of actinians and applied to the few that he did mention 

 obscene or indecent names. Many writers, for the past hundred years, have 

 rejected the names he gave to his Actiniae on account of their indecency, in 

 addition to the impossibihtjr of deciding just what he did try to describe. 



European writers have not agreed as to what species Linnaeus had in view. 

 Although some have identified his A.felina with the present species, others have 

 referred it to M. dianthus (e.g. Bruguiere, 1789). The name and description 

 by Linnaeus apply far better to a gephyrean worm, with a muricate proboscis 

 (armed with hooks) than to any actinian. His names should be forgotten. 

 He, himself, rejected his earlier generic name, Priapus, (1761) apparently on 

 account of its too conspicuous indecency.^ 



Urticina columbiana. New species. 



Urticina crassicornis (pars) McMurrich, op. cit., 1901, pp. 28-34, pi. 1, fig. 6. 



Plate XXIX; Figs. 1, 2. From life. 



This large red species, often over four inches in diameter and height, occurs 

 in Puget sound and in Port Townsend bay, etc. It has large and long tentacles. 

 It appears to be closely alhed to the preceding species, but is, I believe, specifically 

 distinct. I have three good coloured dra^vings of it, made from living Port 

 Townsend specimens by Mr. J. G. Swan. Although I have formerly seen 

 large alcohohc specimens of it, and also dramngs, I have made no recent dis- 

 sections.^ 



The body-wall in the type figured is clear bright orange-red, and the very 

 numerous conspicuous, raised, verruciform suckers are light yellow. They 

 form many regular vertical rows and are much more notable, larger, and more 

 persistent than those of U. crassicornis. The texture of the wall is rather 

 thicker and firmer, and in partial contraction it usually forms many strong 

 concentric wrinkles or "ruffles," on which the suckers, standing in rows, "look 

 like bead-work." 



The tentacles are long, thick, tapered, often subacute, and the larger ones 

 are often more than one and a half inches (30 to 38 mm.) long. They are trans- 

 lucent, pale flesh-colour, or yellowish, without bands, but the 12 inner ones are 

 red at the inner base. In the drawing there are about 72, but the number may 

 be up to 200 or more. The disk has a broad bright red band near the tentacles, 

 with small rays running from it part way to the mouth; oral region light yeUow; 

 lips pink. 



It lacks the pairs of rachating red or purphsh lines usually conspicuous m 

 U. crassicornis, and the type lacks bands on the tentacles. The base is deep 



'Under that genu3 (ed. X) he included both gephjTean worms and actinians. Personally I believe 

 that his original P. felina was a muricate or armed gephyrean, to which his otherwise obscure description 

 would apply, as well as its resemblance to a cat's penis, indicated by the name P. felina. N o other explana- 

 tion can account for the use of such a name, nor for his use of " glande muricata. „„,f;„„ „„ 



^In 1861, just before the Civil War, I prepared a report on the Anthozoa collected by the Parties on 

 the Northwest Boundary Survey. Several specimens of this large species were in the collection. 1 liey 

 were dredged in Puget Sound. During the war that report and the illustrations and collections were lost, 

 like many other things in Washington. 



