REPORT ON THE ANTIPATHARIA. 101 



Antipathes fccniculacea, Pallas (non Espor). 



Antipathes fceniculacea, Pallas, Elench. Zoopb., p. 207. 



1 Antipathes fceniculum, Lamarck, Hist. nat. anira. sans vert., t. ii. p. 308 ; Lamouroux, Polyp, flex., 

 p. 379; Encycl. method., t. iv. p. 71 ; Blainville, Manuel d'Actinol., p. 583 ; Dana, Zoopb., 

 p. 582; Milne-Edwards, Coralliaires, t. i. p. 318; Studer, Monatsber. Akad. Berlin, 1878, p. 

 548. 



"Antipathes ramosissiraa, rarnis setaceis, decomposito pinnatis. Frutex pedali scepe 

 major, iu latum expansus, diffusus, tenuicaulis. Truncus in maximis calamo noncrassior, 

 ramosissimus, subdivisus. Rami inordiuati, creberrimi, fere distichi, patentis, rigentesque, 

 setacei ; setis distichis, sine ordine alternis vel suboppositis, aliquando ramosis pinnati. 

 Lignum fruticis, ubi opacum, atrum extns tenerrime hispidum. Eami aliqui infracti 

 quasi, cum contiguisque coaliti. Tegumentum mucosum, setaceis maxime ramis crassissi- 

 mum, ex altero fruticis latere in nodulas per intervalla collectum, siccatumque ramulas 

 nodosos sistens " (Pallas, op. cit.). Pallas thinks the Fcenum marinum, Rumphius, from 

 the East Indies, may belong to this species, but his type came from the Mediterran- 

 ean. So far as I am aware Studer is the only author who has recently recorded this 

 species, but he adds nothing to the descriptions already given. His specimens (referred 

 to Antipathes fceniculum, Lamarck) were obtained off Dirk Hartog, &c, West Australia, 

 in 45 to 50 fathoms. 



Lamarck's diagnosis has usually been followed, but it is not so complete as the original. 

 One expression, viz., "ramulis ultimis setaceis Icevigatis," renders it possible that he may 

 not have had a truly spinose species before him. A comparison of the figure in the 

 Herbarium Amboinense of Rumphius, with that in Wilkens and Herbst's translation of the 

 Elenchus Zoophytorum (the original work was not illustrated), has led me to suppose 

 that this species may be allied to Antipathes dichotoma, Pallas, if not identical with it. 

 Both species are from the Mediterranean, which, so far, supports this view, but I have not 

 seen any specimen agreeing with the definition of Antipathes fceniculacea. It is a much 

 more densely paniculate form than Antipathes dichotoma, but, so far as the type of 

 branching goes, if the figures referred to are to be relied on, it is the same in both cases. 

 It may be, however, that an examination of the polyps and spines may show the two 

 forms to be distinct. In the meantime, at any rate, it appears better to retain both 

 names. 



It should be noted that Pallas' type specimen came from the Mediterranean, but I 

 am not aware that the species has since been recorded from that area. Lamarck's type, 

 which, so far as can be ascertained from his description, does not appear to offer any 

 essential points of difference, came from the Indian Ocean, as did also the specimen 

 more recently recorded by Studer. It is therefore at present uncertain whether all 

 belong to one species. 



