221 



I have not had the opportunity of examining Studer's speci ■ 

 men from 50 fathoms in latitude 33° 59' S. and longitude 17° 52' 

 E., which he named first Isidella and subsequently Primnoisis 

 capensis, but although this nominally belongs to another family,. 

 the Isidae, I am convinced that it must be closely related to, if 

 not identical with, Wrightella coccinea. 



Family Dasygorgiidae, W. and S. 



The family Dasygorgiidae of Wright and Studer (23) was 

 defined as follows : — 



Colony consisting of a simple or branched axis. Main axis : 

 calcareous at its base, which latter is either flattened and disc- 

 like, or ramifying into numerous root-like processes ; the fibrous 

 portions of the stems and branches with calcareous particles 

 intermixed; often brilliantly iridescent. Coenenchyma; for 

 the most part thin, sometimes without spicules, at other times 

 with nujnerous transparent glassy, fusiform often spiny spicules, 

 or with irregular scale-like spicules ; sometimes the spicules are 

 in two layers. Polyps ; large, prominent, inserted on the axis 

 either at right angles or obliquely; covered with spicules 

 variously arranged ; tentacles retractile, sometimes only imper- 

 fectly so." 



In his recent important paper on the Gorgoniidae of the Siboga 

 Expedition, Dr. Versluys (22) has revised the genera and species 

 included in this family, and has reinstituted Verrill's original 

 name Chrysogorgiidae for the family, and given a more restricted 

 definition of it. The specimen I am about to describe should 

 be clearly included in the family as described by Wright and 

 Studer, but in the fact that the zooids are situated on all sides 

 and not on one line only of the branches it would not be included 

 in the more restricted family as defined by Versluys. The same 

 difficulty arises v/ith regard to the species Chrysogorgia con- 

 stricta Hiles (7), in which the zooids are situated on at least two 

 sides of the branches. 



Two courses are open therefore. Either to constitute a new 

 family for Hiles' Chrysogorgia constricta and this Cape specimen,, 

 or to aaopt VVnght and Studer's definition of the group and in- 

 clude them in the family Dasygorgiidae. 



The latter course appears to me the more reasonable of the 

 two. The new genus, which I propose to call Trichogorgia, is 

 clearly related closely to many species of the genus Dcisygorgia 

 (W. and b.) or Chrysogorgia (Versluys), in the mode of origin 

 of the branches, in the character and disposition of the spicules, 

 in the arrangement of the calcareous deposits in the axis and in 

 the mode of retraction of the tentacles, etc. To constitute a new 



