200 
The nematocysts in the column and tentacles were sparse, in 
the actinopharynx more numerous, in the marginal sphaerules very 
numerous, in the latter there were also sparse spirocysts. In the 
specimen from the Slipper Isl. I observed also very large nemato¬ 
cysts (62—79 X 6 — 6,5 ft) in the maceration preparations of some 
tentacles, in other tentacles however no such nematocysts. Probably 
these nematocysts do not belong to the tentacles but are stuck to them. 
Genus Parantheopsis McMurr. 
Di agn os i s. Actiniidae with more or less cylindrical body and 
well developed pedal disc. Urticina-verrucae in longitudinal rows at 
least in the upper part of the column. Margin and fossa distinet. 
(Little? or) no sphineter. Tentacles short, the outer almost as long as 
the inner. Longitudinal muscles of the tentacles and radial muscles 
of the oral disc ectodermal. Siphonoglyphes well developed. Mesen- 
teries arranged octo-, penta- or hexamerously. All or most mesen- 
teries perfeet. 2 pairs of directives (always?). Longitudinal muscle 
pennons of the mesenteries well developed as also the parietobasilar 
and basilar muscles. Reproductive organs on the mesenteries of 
the first order and on all or almost all of the other orders. 
Owing to the different length of the tentacles in the typical 
Condylactis-speciQs and in some other species described as Condy- 
lactis, for inst. C. cruentcitci, I have 1903 proposed to divide the genus 
Condylactis in two genera or subgenera. The following year 1904 
McMurrich also erected a new genus Parantheopsis for C. eru- 
entata and a new species ocellata. According to him the genus 
Parantheopsis should be distinguished from Condylactis “by the 
possession by the latter of a “collar“ in place of a parapet, and of 
longer and stouter tentacles.“ In Stephenson’s paper of 1922 
Condylactis as well as Parantheopsis are on his list of genera, but 
the characters given by him are not good. Stephenson remarks 
(p. 269) “that it seems possible that two distinet species have been 
described under the name eruentata. The description rather sug¬ 
gests this and that one of the two is a Condylactis and the other 
a Parantheopsis C I cannot agree with him in this point, the spec- 
imens anatomically described by McMurrich, myself and C1 ubb 
are undoubtedly the same species. Only the identification ofCou- 
thouy’s Actinia eruentata with the species, described by the above 
