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



branched as well as unbranched types. Thus, as Milne-Edwards points out, the simple 

 elongate character of the axis is the only feature, in the absence of a fuller knowledge of 

 the polyps, which separates this genus from the other Antipathidas. This is the character 

 which has been regarded as generic by subsequent investigators. Antipathes spiralis, 

 Pallas, constitutes the type of the genus, but unfortunately we have at present no certain 

 knowledge of its polyps, excepting such as may be surmised from the drawings in Ellis 

 and Solander's Zoophytes. These, which only include the mouth and tentacles, appear to 

 represent a rounded polyp with the tentacles arranged in a radiate manner — the form of 

 polyp indeed which one has been accustomed to regard as typical of the Antipathidae. 

 Whether the polyps were arranged in a single row along the axis as in typical Antipathes, 

 or all around the axis as in Cirrhipathes anguina, Dana, is uncertain, as Ellis gives no 

 information on the point. An especially interesting feature of the drawings, and one 

 which has given rise to frequent comment, is the curious cup-shaped mouth with a crenate 

 margin, a form of oral aperture which does not appear to be shared by the species subse- 

 quently studied by Lacaze Duthiers and G. v. Koch. From a study of allied forms I am 

 inclined to believe that this is a natural feature of the species, somewhat exaggerated, 

 and not an altogether artificial appearance, as some have supposed. At any rate, in 

 Cirrhipathes propinqua we have a type of oral cone, which with a little exaggeration 

 (possibly in Ellis' case due to maceration of previously dried specimens) would agree fairly 

 well with the drawings referred to. Pourtales (71) in 1880 described and figured a species 

 which he regarded as possibly identical with Antipathes spiralis, Pallas — a form which 

 he had previously looked upon as a spiral variety of Cirrhipathes deshonni, Duchassaing 

 and Michelotti. The polyps as described and figured by Pourtales are quite unlike those 

 of any species known at the time. The tentacles are long, fleshy, finger-like processes 

 which do not usually shrink much in spirit and are evidently non-retractile. The polyps 

 appear alternately large and small, and are arranged on one side of the stem only. By a 

 comparison of the drawings and description of this form with specimens of Cirrhipathes 

 spiralis from the East Indies (the original habitat), I have convinced myself that, 

 irrespective of the structure of the polyps, the two forms are distinct. Pourtales indeed 

 was doubtful of their identity, but had no means of comparison at the time. 



The only other species of Cirrhipathes previously described of which any account is 

 given of the polyps is the Cirrhipathes anguina of Dana, a form which he regarded as 

 probably identical with Palmijuncus anguinus, Rumphius {Cirrhip>athes Sieboldi, Blain- 

 ville). This is a species having rounded polyps with radiately arranged tentacles. The 

 polyps are not alternately large and small as in Pourtales' species, but subequal and 

 disposed all around the axis instead of in linear series. Haeckel has since figured a 

 .similar arrangement in Antipathes corticata, Lamarck. Between Dana's type and that of 

 Pourtales there is a marked difference both in structure and arrangement — a difference prob- 

 ably sufficient to be of generic value. The question now arises, does Antipathes spiralis, 



