by 
4 
LUCERNARIANS OF PORT ERIN. 259 
from the Sutherland coast may be, there is very strong 
evidence that it is not the same species as the Orkney 
Carduella. First, since Clark had been able to compare 
undoubted specimens of the latter with specimens of 
Lucernaria cyathiformis from Sars, his opinion as to their 
identity must carry great weight ; and secondly, Clark has 
given an account of the structure of this species, based on 
the above named specimens, the accuracy of which 
Haeckel acknowledges; and this account shows that these 
specimens differ materially in their internal organisation 
(more especially in the presence of mesogonial pouches) 
from the structure which is found in the genus Depastrella 
according to the type species from the Canary Islands— 
Depastrella carduella, of which he gives figures. He gives 
no figures of Depastrella allmam but describes it as having 
practically the same internal structure as Depastrella car- 
duella, consequently if Haeckel’s description of the Suther- 
land species be correct, it is obvious that its internal 
anatomy differs considerably from that of Cardwella, how- 
ever similar they may be in external features, and we may 
safely conclude that Carduella cyathiformis, Depastrum 
cyathifornus and Lucernaria cyathifornuis are one and the 
same species. 
Sub-family—HLEUTHEROCARPIDA. 
Hatliclystus auricula, (Rathke). 
A small Haliclystus was found near Port St. Mary by 
M. Chopin, in 1891, on a lobster pot 1 believe, and is now 
in the Zoological Museum at University College, Liver- 
pool. I have seen the specimen and, as far as I can judge, 
it is H. auricula, but it may possibly be H. octoradiata 
(Lamarck, 3). The shape and size of the marginal anchors 
seem to be those typical of H. auwricula ; the characters of 
the gonads I have not been able to make out satisfactorily. 
With regard to these two species we again meet with 
