REPORT ON THE ANTIPATHARIA. 13 



spines are not nearly so prominent as in Esper's species. The specimen in question 

 forms part of a collection from the West Indies purchased from Scrivener. Another 

 species described from the same collection was named Antipathes atlantica by Gray. I 

 find no specimen bearing that name in the collection, but several agree with Gray's 

 characters. All approach his supposed Antipathes reticulata, Esper, in form, and a 

 careful comparison has led me to believe that all belong to one species, though there is 

 considerable difference in the relative thickness of the branches. I have therefore 

 retained the name Antipathes atlantica, Gray, for these specimens, and include Antipathes 

 reticulata, Gray, non Esper, as a synonym. 



I find no specimen in the British Museum collection bearing the name Antipathes 

 pluma, Gray. There are, however, two or three specimens which agree with Gray's 

 characters, one without locality, one from St. Helena, and one more recently received from 

 the East Indies. As the result of a comparison of these specimens with fragments of 

 Antipathes pennacea, Pallas, from the Paris Museum, I am led to suppose the two forms 

 to be identical. There is, however, a considerable variation in the length of the pinnules 

 in different specimens ; in some, certain pinnules become elongate and pinnate, whilst in 

 others all remain simple. There appears, as far as I could ascertain, no sufficient 

 variation in the spines to afford constant characters. I have therefore regarded Gray's 

 Antipathes plmna as synonymous with Antipathes pennacea, Pallas. 



The genus Sarcogorgia must have been included in the Antipathidse by an oversight, 

 unless Gray regarded Antipathes and Gorgonia as members of one order, which appears 

 possible. Gray's original description of Sarcogorgia phidippus occurs in the Proceedings 

 of the Zoological Society for 1857. Professor E. P. Wright, to whom I have referred in 

 the matter, informs me that he has not seen Gray's specimen, but, judging from the figure, 

 he is of opinion that it may be identical with Spongioderma verrucosa (Kolliker), one of 

 the Briareidas. Gray points out that " some of the smooth species referred to the 

 genus Antipathes by Esper, as Antipathes foeniculacea, Antipathes clathrata, and 

 Antipathes ligulata, are evidently the axes of some species of Gorgoniadse that have lost 

 their bark ; " he should also have included Antipathes flabellum, Esper, in the same 

 category. His definition of the genus Antipathes is based on an examination of dry 

 specimens, and it is evident that he failed to grasp the true generic, or, as one might now 

 call them, ordinal characters. He says : — " Bark fleshy, with imbedded, large and small 

 brown (siliceous) plates, easily deciduous. Axis simple or branched, horny, covered with 

 numerous close-set, sub-cylindrical spines." Gray evidently regarded the genus Anti- 

 pathes as closely allied to Gorgonia, and as such, probably possessing siliceous plates or 

 spicules within the ccenenchyma. He combats Dana's view that Antipathes is nearly 

 allied to the Actiniaria, basing his opposition on his studies of the dried polyps of 

 Leiopathes glaberrima and Cirrhipathes anguina. He adds, " I am aware that the 

 tentacles do not appear to be pinnated, when they are examined after they have been 



