212 
other. In the largest sectioned specimen from Paterson Inlet the 
mesenteries were 48, of which one half perfect. Also in hand-section 
through the under part of the largest specimen from Port Pegasus 
I counted 48 stronger mesenteries, but it is probable that some 
very small mesenteries were besides present (compare the number 
of tentacles). 
Gen. Isocradactis nov. gen. 
D i a g n o s i s. Actiniidae (Bunodactiidae) with well developed pedal 
disc. Column high with sucking warts {Urticina-\errncae) arranged 
in longitudinal rows and encreasing enormously in number a short 
distance from the tentacles. Several warts in bunches projecting 
from a common stalk form here in each compartment “frond‘‘-like 
formations. Sphincter diffuse (or circumscript, /. plicata Hut. teste 
S tue key). Tentacles numerous, short, conical, hexamerously ar¬ 
ranged, the outer somewhat shorter than the inner. Longitudinal 
muscles of the tentacles and radial muscles of the oral disc ecto- 
dermal. Actinopharynx well developed. 2 siphonoglyphes with well 
developed aboral prolongations. Mesenteries hexamerously arranged. 
Most mesenteries perfect. Longitudinal muscle pennons diffuse band- 
like. Parietobasilar and basilar muscles well developed. All mesent¬ 
eries excl. the directives fertile. 
The genus Cradaetis proposed by McMurrich (1893 p. 197) 
is characterised by him as follows: “Phyllactidae with the “fronds“ 
represented by bunches of simply or slightly branched, short tent- 
acle-like structures. Sphincter aggregated or circumscribed. Column 
with verrucae.“ Unfortunately McMurrich gives no description of 
the structure of these “fronds“. Stephenson (1922 p. 284) re- 
gards the genus Saccactis, proposed by Lager (1911) as identical 
v/ith Cradaetis, Lager describes the nature of the branched “fronds‘‘ 
in Saccactis and States that they are nematocyst batteries (“die 
kleinen Nesselkapseln scheinen indessen immer und vorzugsweise 
an den Spitzen der Zweige sich zu befinden und liegen daselbst 
dicht aneinander gedrangt“ — 1911, p. 220). There are in all three 
specimens described here besides marginal sphaerules(Randsackchen), 
which seem to be lacking in Cradaetis. Thus it seems that Crad¬ 
aetis and Saeeaetis are two different genera. , 
However this may be, it is impossible to place Cradaetis magna 
