REPORT ON THE ANTIPATHARIA. 19 



possible, the creation of synonyms I have decided to retain the generic name Leiopathes 

 for this species, though I do so with considerable hesitation. In the first place the name 

 has been associated only with such characters as are not of generic value, characters 

 indeed which are deceptive or false. Then again, though it is generally accepted that 

 Gray intended Antipathes glaberrima, Esper, as the type of his genus, we have no type 

 specimen to refer to, and he is by no means clear on the subject. It is only because 

 Antipathes glaberrima, Esper, has the greater portion of the axis smooth, and that its 

 ccenenchyma has been found frequently to have spicules adhering to it, that the species can 

 be made to agree with Gray's definition, and in this respect a dry specimen of Savaglia 

 lamarchi would fulfil the conditions equally well. One result of this investigation is to 

 bring out clearly the fact that so far as we know at present there are no species of true 

 Antipathidse in which the sclerenchyma is entirely without spines, the only species in 

 which the axis is smooth throughout being Savaglia lamarcki, and this on morpho- 

 logical grounds has been removed to another family. 



Hyalopatlies.— -This genus was proposed by Milne-Edwards, who gives the following 

 short definition :—" Axe sclerobasique rameux, lisse et d'un aspect vitreux." He was 

 led to separate the forms included in this genus on account of the semi-hyaline aspect 

 of the sclerenchyma, which he supposed to be associated with a difference in chemical 

 composition. Three species are included in the genus, all described by Lamarck, viz.: 

 — Hyalopatlies pyramidata, Hyalopatlies pectinata, and Hyalopatlies corticata. The 

 first named, Milne-Edwards' type, has since proved not to belong to the Antipathidse, 

 and is now arranged in Verrill's genus Iridogorgia as Iridogorgia pyramidata. I find 

 a fine specimen in the British Museum collection. The sclerenchyma is semitransparent, 

 smooth, and undoubtedly has a vitreous aspect. 



With regard to the second species, Hyalopatlies pectinata, Lamarck only gives a very 

 imperfect description, and so far as I am aware, it has not been identified by subsequent 

 investigators. I find nothing in his description to give one the idea that the axis differs 

 from the typical chitinous one of Antipathes, indeed he does not mention the colour 

 of the axis, as is the case in his description of Antipathes pyramidata, but Milne- 

 Edwards may have examined the type specimen. Lamarck describes the spines as few, 

 but if they are present at all the species may belong to the Antipathidre, although it 

 would scarcely conform to the definition of the genus Hyalopatlies. With the little 

 information obtainable at present, I have been compelled to include this form amongst 

 the species dubiae. 



The third species, Hyalopatlies corticata, has since been observed by Haeckel, who 

 gives a figure of a living colony in his Arabische Korallen. In the short description 

 which Haeckel gives of this figure, he speaks of the sclerenchyma being black with a 

 glassy aspect and as also being regularly spinose as in the Antipathidas generally. These 

 researches, though probably not sufficient to enable us to assign to this species its natural 



