THE ALCYONARIA OF THE MALDIVES. 491 



anthocodiae, the mode of branching, the size of the spicules of the coenenchym and the 

 other characters of the Challenger specimens; but I think it will be found in the future 

 that it is not advisable to recognise in them more than one species. I propose to give a 

 new specific name to the Maldive specimens for various reasons, but I am prepared to admit 

 that the specific distinctions between them and the Challenger specimens are slight and 

 unimportant. 



I think, however, it will be found that in the specimens proposed to be named 

 C. variabilis the spicules are on an average larger and more regularl}^ arranged in the 

 coenenchym, that the colour, branching and arrangement of the anthocodiae are more irregular 

 {i.e. less in conformity with a spiral arrangement), and the anthocodiae rather larger and 

 more retractile than in the Challenger species. It is better, however, to leave the matter in 

 an undecided position until more specimens are obtained from a depth of over 200 fathoms. 



The next question is. How are we to distinguish the genus Siphonogorgia from Chiro- 

 nephthya now that the two characters given by Wright and Studer as diagnostic of the 

 latter genus have broken down ? 



Having carefully compared the specimens of Chironeplithya variabilis with Siphonogorgia 

 mirabilis from the Maldive archipelago, I would suggest that the name Chironeplithya be 

 retained for the species or facies with a form' and mode of branching resembling that of 

 the genus Nephthya, with anthocodiae rarely completely retracted in preserved specimens, and 

 with four principal spicules arranged en chevron in the points of the anthocodiae (Figs. 9 

 and 10); and that the name Siphonogorgia be retained for species or facies of more massive 

 Gorgonia-\\kQ form of growth, with anthocodiae capable of complete retraction within the 

 general coenenchj-m and with spicules irregularly placed or arranged in a fan-like manner in 

 the points of the anthocodiae (Fig. 11). 



As regards the second of these characters it may be pointed out that in Siphonogorgia 

 pendula (W. and S.) and the variety of Siphonogorgia pendula described by Klikenthal as 

 ternatana, the anthocodiae do not appear to be completel}^ retractile. But Kiikenthal's variety 

 would be more properly referred to the genus Chironephthya, and the type must be regarded 

 as an intermediate form between the two genera which it is convenient for the present to 

 retain in the genus Siphonogorgia on account of its Gorgo7iia-\ike form. 



As regards the third character, Siphonogorgia pendula (W. and S.) and Kiikenthal's 

 variety ternatana have the spicules of the " points " arranged in a manner very similar to 

 that of Chironephthya. There is no very careful descrijition or figure of this feature, in other 

 species, owing to the retractility of the anthocodiae rendering the observation a difficult one. 



In the specimens from the Maldives which I have referred to the species S. mirabilis 

 an examination of nearly a hundred anthocodiae showed that only in a few rare cases there 

 are four prominent spicules arranged en chevron as in Chironephthya ; but in the majority 

 of cases there is one prominent median spicule with four or five bent spicules arranged fan- 

 wise on each side of it, as shown in Fig. 11. 



The species Siphonogorgia macrospina described by Whitelegge (24) from Funafuti fi-om 

 a few fragments appears to me to be more correctly referred to the genus Chironephthya. 



It is probable from the literature of the subject that in most of the species of Sipho- 

 nogorgia the an-angement of these spicules is similar to this, and it is also probable that 

 this arrangement is intimately associated with the power of retraction of the anthocodiae. 



63—2 



