REPORT ON THE ANTIPATHARIA. 9 



axis. A small specimen in the University Museum at Copenhagen, which was received 

 through the Museum of Comparative Zoology, agrees with Verrill's description, and is 

 the one on which my description has been based. Lamouroux's description is too 

 indefinite to enable one to decide with certainty whether this specimen agrees with 

 his type. 



Lamouroux's Exposition Methodique (25) contains no new information regarding 

 the Antipathidse, and so far as that section of the work is concerned, simply reproduces 

 the descriptions and figures from Ellis and Solander's work. 



In 1824 he published in the Encyclopedie Methodique (26) a synopsis of the forms 

 already known. Twenty-six species are described, of which one is new to science. 

 This (Antipathes eupteridea) has since been identified by Pourtales from Martinique, the 

 original locality, and judging from the mode of branching, may possibly prove, when the 

 polyps are better known, to belong to the subfamily Schizopathinge. At any rate it 

 appears to have a type of branching which so far as is known at present is not found 

 amongst the Antipathinse. The same work gives a rather fuller description of Antipathes 

 boscii, but again no reference is made to the spines. Lamouroux mentions that he 

 has received fragments of this species from the He cle Re, off the West Coast of France. 



Risso (27), two years later, only recorded one species of Antipathes {A. larix, 

 Esper) as the result of his researches on the Mediterranean shores of France, but 

 another form which he named Eunicea Antipathes may also have belonged to the group, 

 though it appears impossible to decide at present. 



In 1832 Gray (28) contributed a note on the Animal of Antipathes, the purport 

 of which will be discussed in connection with a later paper of his on the same subject. 



Blainville (31), in his Manuel dActinologie (1834-1837), instituted a new genus, 

 Cirrhipathes, for the reception of Antipathes spiralis, Pallas, and another simple form 

 which he named Cirrhipathes Sieboldi ( = Palmijuncus anguinus, Rumphius?), but of 

 which he gives no description. This genus was proposed by Blainville in consequence of 

 Ellis' observations on the form of the polyp of Antipathes spiralis, Pallas, and for the 

 reception of forms which, like it, have an unbranched sclerobasic axis. The systematic 

 value of this genus as defined by Blainville will be considered later when discussing 

 the merits of the classification adopted by Milne-Edwards. 



In 1842 Gray (32) proposed to separate those species of Antipathidse having a smooth 

 sclerobasis, and include them in a new genus Leiopathes. The name occurs in the 1842 

 edition of the Synopsis of the British Museum, but he does not appear to have defined 

 the genus until the publication (40) of his Revision of Axiferous Zoophytes in 1857. In 

 addition to the smooth nature of the axis, Gray calls attention to the presence of spicules 

 in the coenenchyma, a character which he considered linked this genus more closely to the 

 Gorgoniclae. I propose to refer to the subject again when considering the arrangement 

 suggested by Mdne-Edwards. 



(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP. — PART LXXX. — 1889.) ^^ 2 



