48 A. E. Y err ill — New Actinians. 



The second species referred to it (1860), as A. neglectus, 

 appears to be the young of Lebrunia neglecta, described in the 

 same work. Although it was only 5 lines in diameter it had 

 30 tentacles and 5 dichotomously branched fronds. 



Lebrunia Dance (D. and M.) Verrill. Figure 15. 



Oulactis Dance Duch. and Mich., op. cit., p. 47, pi. VII, fig. 10 (frond), 1860. 



Rhodactis Dance Duch. and Mich., Supl., p. 37, 1866. 



Taractea Dance Andres, op. cit., p. 284, 1884. 



Lebrunea neglecta Duerden, Actin. Jamaica, p. 456, 1898. 



f Hoplophoria coralligens Duerden, loc. cit. (non Wilson).* 



Specimens of large size, up to 8 inches or more in diameter, 

 were obtained by me at Bermuda, in 1898. These agree very 

 well with the specimens described by Duerden from Jamaica, 

 as L. neglecta, but not with those described by McMurrich 

 under the same name. In having numerous rounded acrorhagi 

 on the actinobranchs or fronds (fig. 15) my species agrees with the 

 Oulactis Danoe D. and M., from St. Thomas, which is evidently 

 a Lebrunia, and there is no reason to doubt its identity with 

 the Bermuda species. 



My larger examples were usually dark green in life, with 

 the tentacles somewhat paler green and "flecked more or less 

 with white ; disk olive-green with whitish radial spots ; fronds 

 bluish green with the tips and rounded bodies light blue. It 

 lives with the body concealed in holes or crevices of the reef- 

 rock, at and below low-water mark. The tentacles are long. 



Lebrunia neglecta Duch. and Mich. 



Lebrunia neglecta Duch. and Mich., op. cit., p. 48, pi. VII, fig. 8, 1860 (young). 

 Andres, op. cit., p. 362 (non Duerden). 



? Actinodactylus neglectus Duch. and Mich., op. cit., p. 44, 1 860 (very young). 



? Stauractis incerta Andres, op. cit., p. 255, 1884 (new name for last). 



Lebrunea neglecta McMurrich, Actiu. Bahama Is., p. 33, pi. I, fig. 7 (general), pi. 

 Ill, figs. 11-14 (anatomy). 



This species was originally based on a small specimen (about 

 one-half an inch high), but it had relatively large, much dichoto- 

 mously divided fronds, according to the figure. McMurrich 

 has given a detailed description of a species that appears to be 

 the same, though much larger in size. His figures represent 

 the 6 fronds as dichotomous, but with few divisions, though in 



* The Hoplophoria coralligens Wilson, was described from a single, very small 

 specimen (diameter about 2 mm ), having 48 unequal tentacles and 4 simple, elon- 

 gated, marginal fronds. Duerden identified with it a small form of Lebrunia, hav- 

 ing dichotomous fronds and agreeing nearly in color, etc., with L. Dance. The 

 identity of his specimens with the true Hoplophoria seems to me very doubtful. 

 This generic name is unfortunate for its variants, Hoplophorus and Hopliphorus, had 

 been used previously for five distinct genera. It evidently cannot be the young 

 of either nominal species of Actinodactylus, for although much smaller, it has more 

 tentacles. It is most likely to be the young of Diplactis Bermudensis McMur., or 

 some similar species. 



