REPORT ON THE ANTIPATHARIA. 7 



shown to have six tentacles arranged in a radiate manner around the mouth. The 

 drawings were made from a dried specimen which was first soaked for some time in water, 

 and imperfect though they are, form the only drawings of the polyp of this species with 

 which I am acquainted. A form described under the same name by Pourtales is, as will 

 be shown later, generically distinct. The drawings of Ellis brought out for the first time 

 an important point of difference between Antipathes and Gorgonia, namely, that the 

 polyps of the former have only six instead of eight tentacles. More recently this 

 numerical difference has been shown to be accompanied by important structural 

 differences, but until within the last few years the exact bearing of these points on the 

 systematic position of Antipathes has not been understood. 



Next in point of time follows Esper (21), who in his beautiful work Die Pflanzen- 

 thiere described aud figured ten species. This author's descriptions, though long, are 

 often indefinite, but as a rule his figures are good. Three of the species described appear 

 new to science, viz., Antipathes larix from the Mediterranean, and Antipathes virgata 

 and Antipathes reticulata, probably from the East Indies. 



Esper's species Antipathes glaberrima is the Savaglia of Donati and the Italians, and 

 probably forms a considerable part of the " Black Coral " of commerce. In three cases 

 where Esper thought to have obtained species described by Pallas, viz., Antipathes 

 famiculacea, Antipathes flabellum, and Antipathes clathrata, he describes and figures 

 specimens of decorticated Gorgonidas and not the true Antipathes. All three forms 

 described by Pallas have a spinose sclerenchyma, whereas those described by Esper are 

 all smooth. The same remark applies to his new species Antipathes ligulata, which has 

 a smooth axis, and, as first suggested by Dana, is probably a decorticated Gorgonid. 

 Antipathes compressa, Esper, is founded on the base of some large species. Dana says 

 that Esper's figure agrees with the base of his Antipathes arborea, whilst Gray suggests 

 that Esper's species may be the base of Antipathes myriophylla. In any case the name 

 should be dropped, having no specific value, and its retention only adds to the confusion 

 of the croup. Esper does not describe Antipathes ericoides, but gives a figure of it, and 

 remarks that there are many forms allied to Antipathes myriophylla, Pallas, of which 

 Antipathes ulex, Ellis and Solander, is one, and Antipathes ericoides, Pallas, another. The 

 latter, however, does not seem so closely related to Antipathes myriophylla as Esper 

 would have us suppose. Finally his species Antipathes paniculata appears to be founded 

 on a variety of Gorgonia abies, Linnseus {Antipathes cupressina, Pallas), as was first sug- 

 gested by Lamarck. Dana, however, points out that it differs in the relative development 

 of the lateral branches. There is a fine specimen of this form in the British Museum, 

 which seems to differ from Antipathes abies (Linn.) Gray, in possessing stronger lateral 

 paniculate branches, but in other respects agrees with the earlier type ; thus, at most, it 

 can only be regarded as a variety. 



Bruo-uiere (22) in 1792 gave a synopsis of the species already known, and described 



