LUCERNARIANS OF PORT ERIN. 255 
deed I do not think it is capable of doing so. In this 
respect it differs from most Lucernarians. This species has 
been the subject of no little confusion, into the discussion 
of which I must enter at some length. 
It was first described and figured in 1846 as Lucernaria 
cyathiformis, by Michael Sars, in the ‘‘ Fauna Littoralis 
Norvegie,”’ (4). In 1858 Gosse in his ‘‘ Synopsis of the 
British Actinie ”’ (5) founded the genus Depastrum, based, 
I think, chiefly on specimens found by himself at Wey- 
mouth, which he regarded as identical with the Lucernaria 
cyathiformis of Sars. In 1859 Allman who had also 
discovered (in the Orkney Islands), what he considered 
the Lucernaria cyathiformis of Sars, in ignorance of 
Gosse’s name, instituted a second one—Carduella (6), 
and in the following year gave a more detailed account of 
his species (7) with figures. Similarly a third generic 
name was founded by Milne Edwards (10) viz., Calicinaria. 
Gosse then pointed out (8) the claims of his name Depas- 
trum to priority, he also gave further details with figures 
of the Weymouth specimens which he now elevated to 
specific rank as Depastrum stellifrons as it appeared to 
differ in certain points from Allman’s species which re- 
tained the name Depastrwm cyathiforme since he (Gosse) 
regarded it as identical with the Lucernaria cyathifornis 
of Sars. To this Allman replied (9) that the points of 
difference between Depastrum and Carduella were of 
generic not specific value merely, and that the name 
Carduella cyathiformis must stand for his own and the 
Norwegian form, which he also regarded as identical. 
Thus the matter rested until the publication of Clark’s 
Prodromus in 1863 (12) wherein the matter was practically 
cleared up, Clark having had the advantage of being able 
to compare specimens of the Orkney form from Allman 
with specimens of various ages sent to him by Sars from 
Norway. 
