DUBLIN UNIVERSITY ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL ASSOCIATION. 
183 
that of L. campanulata. Foliaceous processes proceeded from the month 
to the spurs between the arms as in that form. The stomach also was 
provided with peculiar worm-like csecal appendages, in all respects similar 
to the same organs in L. campanulata. 
The writhing movement of detached portions of these appendages 
continued for a considerable time. ( Vide Dr. Johnston’s “Brit. Zoo¬ 
phytes,” second edition, p. 249). It is evident that the Lucernaria 
here described differs from any other British species, and at the same 
time exhibits characters which connect it with three of these. In colour, 
and in the possession of marginal tubercles, it corresponds with L. auri¬ 
cula , but it differs from that species in the form of its body, and the ap¬ 
pearance of its oral aspect. In the first of these characters it is similar 
to L. fascicularis , but it differs from that form in its smooth peduncle 
and adherent disc, as also in oral aspect. In this last point of view it 
is akin to L. campanulata , but from this it differs in possessing marginal 
tubercles, and in having the tentacular bulbs arranged in pairs. It 
might, then, be inferred that it was a distinct species; and if we admit 
the specific distinctions of L. auricula , L. campanulata , and L. fascicu- 
lariSj we must also admit that of the species described. But it appears 
to me to be far more advisable to regard these as varieties of one and the 
same species, which I propose to name L . typica. The specific differ¬ 
ences between these three forms are by no means strongly marked. 
Some naturalists assert that they have seen examples of L. auricula 
in which the marginal tubercles are absent; and yet these are regarded 
as its chief distinguishing characteristics. Again, the variation to 
which the same species is liable, even in so limited a district as the 
British Isles, from changes of aspect, light, and temperature, is far from 
being fully recognised. This is true, especially in the case of Zoophytes, 
for it is well known that in some instances Dr. Johnston’s descriptions 
of many of these last have been found insufficient, simply because they 
were those of the varieties of these species found on the shores of the 
eastern borders. The example of Lucernaria which I have obtained is 
probably young, since its length is not more than one-third of that which 
many Lucernaria attain, and is on this account well adapted to show 
the general characters of the species. I do not even, notwithstanding 
its peculiar characters, consider it a variety. It is merely an im¬ 
mature form of that one species which, under different circumstances, 
might become I. auricula, L. campanulata , or L. fascicularis. The 
last-mentioned species occurs in but two (or three) British locali¬ 
ties. The peculiar form probably depends upon local causes. The 
L. cyathiformis is, however, a distinct form. 
With regard to the position of the genus Lucernaria, the majority of 
writers seem to be in error. It is usual to place this genus in the neigh¬ 
bourhood of Actinia, and to state that the habits of the Lucernaria are 
intermediate between those of Medusae and Sea-Anemones. Mr. Gosse 
considers that this genus is the link which connects the normal Actinia 
with the Medusae. How any forms can do this, it is not easy to understand. 
The Medusae and Actinia belong to separate and distinct divisions of the 
VOL. V.—PTtOC. SOC. T 
