KTJNGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDUNGAR. BAND 59. N:0 |. 7 



pendent evohition from Heterocyathus, with no real relationship to the Fungidae. The 

 latter, as the genus is quite separate from all others in the Fungidae, appears to me to 

 be the more probable, but I hesitate to adopt the course of placing it with the Turbino- 

 lidae without a more thorough review of the Fungidae than I have the materials to 

 undertake. The genus consists at present only of the species recorded below. (P. 

 rousseaui E. & H., syn. P. hemispherica E. & H. )» 



On the other hand, Verrill (1865—1866, 30, p. 149, 46—48), without discussing 

 the type-species, describes three new species of Stepha?ioseris, from which he separates 

 Heterocyathus in establishing one new species of the latter genus. Judging from the 

 descriptions and the figure of the species of Stephanoseris described by Verrill, they 

 seem to belong to Heterocyathus, an opinion, which Marenzeller (1. c.) also holds. 

 Vaughan (1. c, p. 416) has another view, and after having studied the types of Verrill 

 he says: »The genus, to which these species belong, is not closely related to Heterocya- 

 thus. They are Eupsammids, very close to Balanophyllia, from which they are separated 

 by their apparent commensalism with a Sipirnculid worm. Every specimen is at- 

 tached to a small gastropod shell, and has a small wormhole in its base. The genus is 

 separated from Heteropsammia by its well-developed costae. Most probably Verrill's 

 Stephanoseris is not the Stephanoseris of Milne Edwards and Haime; it may be an 

 undescribed genus. » — As to the relation of Stephanoseris to Heterocyathus, the author 

 does not express any opinion, but he considers Stephanoseris as well as Psammoseris as 

 »genera probably erroneously placed in the Fungida». 



Psammoseris. Edwards founded this genus upon two specimens described by 

 Gray (1849, 16, p. 77) under the name of Heterocyathus hemisphericus. Edwards himself 

 (1860, 8, III, p. 57) says with regard to the new genus: »elle {Stephanoseris) parait 

 ne différer de cette derniére (Psammoseris) que par ses cloisons plus débordantes et 

 par ses palis. » — Tenison-Woods (1878, 28, p. 8—11) established a new species, P. cyli- 

 cioides, thus accepting the genus without discussing its raison d'étre. — Marenzeller 

 (1. c, p. 18) says: »Psammoseris verhält sich nä mlich gerade so z\\v Eupsannn iden -Gått ung 

 Heteropsammia wie Stephanoseris zur Turbino1iiden-Ga.tt\\ng Heterocyathus. » — Moseley 

 (1. c, p. 197) apparently was of the same opinion, though at the place quoted Ste- 

 phanoseris by some oversight is given instead of Psammoseris, an error already no- 

 ticed by Marenzeller (1. c.) and Vaughan (1. c). — Gardiner united, as has been 

 mentioned above, Psammoseris and Stephanoseris under the common name of Psammo- 

 seris. — Bourne (1905, 1. c, p. 194) finally makes the following statement: »The 

 genus Psammoseris is described by Edwards and Haime as resembling Stephanoseris 

 (Heterocyathus) in almost every respect, except that it has no pali. Not having access 

 to the type specimens of Psammoseris, I cannot speak with certainty on this subject, 

 but I am inclined to think that the genus was founded upon a variety of Heterocyathus, 

 in which the pali are so slightly developed as to be indistinguishable from the papilli- 

 form columella. An inspection of Gardiner's excellent photographs of Heterocyathus 

 (Gardiner 1904, 12, plate III, figs. 13—19) shows that such a reduction of the pali 

 is not uncommon. Psammoseris, like Heterocyathus and Heteropsammia, fixes itself in 



