THE ACTINIANS OF PORTO RICO. 
367 
Carlgren’s conclusions merit consideration, for, in addition to the opportunities above mentioned 
of studying the two forms, he has had for comparison specimens of both species which I have sent him 
from Jamaica. I have, unfortunately, not had the opportunity of examining Ellis’s original figures, 
which are really the determining factors in the dispute. My conclusion that the rarer Jamaican 
species was anemone was based mainly upon the fact that Ellis records the angular form of disk of 
anemone , and that Duchassaing & Michelotti refer to the peculiar rapid color variation which the 
species undergoes. While certainly not very reliable characteristics, yet, knowing the fairly uniform 
distribution of the Actiniaria throughout the West Indian area, it seemed not unlikely that Ellis and 
Duchassaing & Michelotti might well have met with the two Discosomids which occur around Jamaica. 
In a il Nachschrift” to his “ Ostafrikanisclie Actinien,” Dr. Carlgren takes the opportunity of 
criticising some of the results in my recent paper on the Jamaican Stichodactylince. With regard to 
the above species he remarks as follows: 
“Bei alien von mir untersuchten Exemplaren von Stochactis helianthus — aucli bei denen, die 
Duerden mir giitigst geschickt hat — stehen die Exocoeltentakeln sozusagen in etwa demselben Cyklus 
wie die aussersten Endocoeltentakeln, ja sehr selten etwas innerhalb der aussersten Endocceltentakeln. 
Die Figur Duerden’s (Taf. xi, Fig. 7) ware nach meiner Meinung richtiger, wenn Duerden in jedem 
Endocoel ausserhalb der iiussersten Tentakeln noch einen Tentakel eingezeichnet hiitte.” 
The criticism is very trivial, for, in the description of the species, I refer to the crowded character 
of the tentacles around the margin. The figure referred to is altogether diagrammatic, its main 
purpose being to show the important fact of the exocoelic origin of the outermost cycle, compared with 
the entocoelic origin of the radial rows. 
With regard to the diagrammatic figure of the tentacles of II. anemone, Carlgren writes: 
“ Was schliesslich llomosticlianthus Duerdeni (ich nenne diese Art so anstatt II. anemone; vergl. 
St. tapetum , p. 77) (p. 97) anbetrifft, so kann ich Duerden’s Angabe von deni Vorhandensein inehrerer 
Tentakeln in jedem Exocoel bestiitigen, aber die Figur Duerden’s (Fig. 4, Taf. xii) von der Tentakel- 
anordnung stimmt nicht gut mit meinen Untersuch ungen iiberein. Eine solche Anordnung der 
Tentakeln in einfachen radialen Serien kann ich nur in den schwiichsten Endocoelpartien finden. Von 
jedem stiirkeren Endocoel entspringen dagegen nur in den inneren Mundscheibenpartien Tentakeln 
in einer Reihe, nach aussen hin in dem gefalteten Mundscheibenteil stehen zwei Liingsreihen neben 
einander und in der Peripherie selten drei. Die Anordnung in bestimmten Reihen in den iiusseren 
Partien der Endocoele ist jedoch, ganz wie hi den Exocoelpartien, sehr unregelmiissig, aber auf die 
Breite jedes Faclies kommen 2-3 Tentakeln. Von den Exoccelen gehen in den peripherischen Teilen 
der Mundscheibe Tentakeln aus; nach innen hin steht ein Tentakel, nach aussen finden sich Reihen 
von zwei (selten drei) Tentakeln neben einander. Die Tentakelzonen der Exocoele bilden also 
triangulare, mit der Basis nach aussen, der Spitze nach innen hin gewendete Partien. Man konnte 
einwenden, dass diese Anordnung durch die Ivontraktion entstanden ware; so weit ich finden kann, 
ist es entschieden nicht so; besonders bei dem einen untersuchten Exemplar sind mehrere Mund- 
scheibenpartien, die die Tentakeln in oben geschilderter Weise tragen, gut ausgestreckt. Eine 
bessere Figur der Tentakelanordnung des Ilomostichantlius scheint mir also von Noten zu sein.” 
In this case the difference between Carlgren and myself may be understood when it is remembered 
that my description was founded upon both the living and preserved appearances of the polyp, while 
Carlgren had for examination only the preserved specimens which I sent him. From dissections of 
the polyp I had obtained all the appearances which Carlgren refers to, and it is easy to understand 
how he has been led astray in his interpretation of the tentacular disposition, and to assume that I was in 
error. I think Carlgren will agree that the true external characteristics of any species are more likely 
to be appreciated in the living than in the preserved condition, and that in any case the living features 
should take precedence of those in the shrunken preserved animal. In my description I state (p. 168) : 
“Peripherally, the tentacles are so closely arranged that on a slight contraction of the polyp the 
apices press one against the other and assume a polygonal outline, and sometimes more than one row 
appears to communicate with a mesenterial chamber.” 
From the numerous living specimens which I had under observation, and the importance which 
I have attached to it in all the species described, it may be expected that I should satisfy myself as to 
the actual disposition of the tentacles in their relationships with the mesenterial chambers. Again 
examining dissections of my preserved specimens of II. anemone from within, I find that in most 
expanded individuals there is but slight evidence of the doubling of the rows peripherally, while in 
the most contracted examples two very distinct rows may be presented and, in places, evidence of the 
2d— F. C. B. 1900—24 
