18 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 



I am unable to say. His published papers certainly lay stress on the fact that the 

 ccenenchyrna of Antipathes glaberrima, Esper, which has generally been accepted as his 

 type, contains spicules, and it was not until some years later that Lacaze Duthiers pointed 

 out that these are in reality foreign to it. Milne-Edwards includes this character in the 

 definition given in his work. Gray on the other hand gives in his later definition a 

 character not included in the original, namely, that the " bark " when dry sometimes forms 

 smooth transparent masses at the forks of the branches. In any case this is of minor 

 importance, but so far as I can ascertain, it is characteristic rather of Antipathes boscii, 

 Lamarck, than of Leiopathes glaberrima (Esper). Gray includes the former species in his 

 new genus, whilst Milne-Edwards does not. I have not seen any specimen in the 

 British Museum which appears referable to Antipathes boscii, and for the reason already 

 given I have followed Verrill in regarding it as a spinose species. Milne-Edwards 

 includes three species, viz. : — Leiopathes lamarcki, Haime, Leiopathes glaberrima (Esper), 

 and Leiopathes compressa (Esper) ; that is to say, all those forms which have been 

 described as possessing a smooth sclerenchyma, but in other respects agreeing with other 

 Antipathidge. Leiopathes lamarcki, Haime, is the Savaglia of Douati and the Italians, 

 and is the species which Lacaze Duthiers (44) has shown to differ so essentially from 

 the Antipathidas that it has been necessary to establish a new family, Savagliidge 

 (Gerardidad), for its reception. 



Antipathes compressa, Esper, cannot be considered to rank as a species ; the type 

 specimen only consisted of the base of some large form, which may or may not have been 

 one of the Antipathidas. Dana suggests that the base of his Antipathes arborea agrees 

 with the figure of Antipathes compressa, Esper, whdst Gray compares it to the base of 

 Antipathes myriopliylla. I think, however, that in this reference Gray does not refer to 

 Antip>athes myriopliylla, Pallas, but to a large virgate species in the British Museum, 

 which also bears that name on the label. There is no resemblance to Antipathes 

 compressa, Esper, in any of the specimens of Antipathes myriopliylla, Pallas, which have 

 come under my notice. 



Finally, Antipathes glaberrima, Esper, in spite of its name, is not a smooth form, as 

 was first shown by Lacaze Duthiers, and afterwards confirmed by Pourtales and others. 

 The stem and main branches are smooth and polished, but the younger branchlets all 

 bear distinct though somewhat distant spines. Thus both generic and specific names are 

 misleading, and the genus Leiopathes, so far as Gray's definition goes, is not a good one. 

 I have, however, been enabled to study the polyps of Antipathes glaberrima, Esper, a 

 species which was included amongst the material kindly supplied to me from the Naples 

 Zoological Station, and I find that this species differs structurally from any with which I 

 am acquainted, and possesses characters sufficiently distinctive to demand its allocation 

 in a separate genus. It thus becomes necessary either to retain the genus Leiopathes in 

 an amended form or to establish a new one. As it is very desirable to avoid, wherever 



