yan. 9, r8go] 



NATURE 



2 19 



excellent figure of a species of Antipathes, in his 

 " Prodomus fasciculi rariorum plantarum anno 1679 in 

 hortis celeberrimis Hollandiae, etc., observatarum." He 

 calls it Abies maritima, and mentions it as a fossil plant ; 

 thus beginning his Prodomus with a form which was not 

 a plant, and which certainly never grew in any of the 

 Dutch gardens. After the bibliography there is a critical 

 review of the literature ; it is pleasing to find the author 

 doing justice to Esper's "beautiful work ' Die Pflanzen- 

 thiere,' " and without wishing to enter on any technical 

 criticism in a general notice like this, we may mention, 

 in reference to a remark that " Esper does not describe 

 Antipathes ericoides, but gives a figure of it," that in the 

 second volume of his work, p. 150, he tells us that the 

 name Antipathes niyriophylla should replace the name of 

 Antipathes ericoides engraved on the plate, and having 

 a delamarck's ^ copy of the " Fortsetzungen der Pflan- 

 zenthiere " open before us, we may add that nearly all the 

 references to Part ii. of this work in Mr. Brook's Report 

 should be to Part i. Part ii. contains only 48 pages, and 

 Antipathes virgata, Esper, is the only species of the 

 genus described in it. In justice to Esper it may be also 

 mentioned that he corrects his mistake of describing 

 a decorticated gorgonid as A. fiabellwn {vide " Pflanzenth. 

 forts.," ii. Th. p. 33). 



The general morphology is next treated of, a general 

 outline of the structure of the various genera, more 

 especially with regard to the forms of the zooids and the 

 number of and relative development of the mesenteries ; 

 this is the first detailed outline of the kind yet published 

 on the morphology of the group, and it is illustrated by 

 woodcuts. The classification and description of the 

 genera and species follow ; then notes on the geogra- 

 phical and bathymetrical distribution. Four species were 

 taken at depths of between 2000 and 3000 fathoms. 



A chapter on the anatomy concludes the Report, but 

 we must content ourselves with quoting only the last 

 few words of this most valuable contribution : — 



" The Antipathinze approach the Cerianthidai more 

 closely than the Hexactinia^ in structure, particularly in the 

 following points : the arrangement of the mesenteries ; 

 the relatively thin mesogloea, which is entirely devoid 

 of stellate connective tissue cells; the presence of an 

 ectodermal muscular layer in the stomodaeum and body 

 wall ; and the rudimentary condition of the musculature 

 of the mesenteries." 



This Report extends to 222 pages, and has an atlas of 

 15 plates. 



The second Report in this volume is by Prof Th. 

 Studer, M.D, Bern, being a " Supplementary Report on the 

 Alcyonaria." We quote the short preface : — 



" After the main Report on the Challenger Alcyonaria 

 was in the press, several further specimens were found. 

 These were in part new species, of which however, it was 

 no longer possible to insert a description in the text. I 

 am under great obligations to Dr. John Murray, the 

 editor of the Challejiger Reports, for allowing me to 

 publish in the form of a supplement an account of these 

 new species with the necessary illustrations. At the same 

 time I have seized the opportunity to insert further illustra- 

 tions of such forms as Dr. Wright and myself had only 

 been able to describe in the Report, as Telesto tricho- 

 stemma and Siphonogorgia kollikeri. This supplement 



* So Lamarck has written his name on the title-piges. 



extends the list of the Challenger collection by three new 

 species of the genus Siphonogorgia, three Muriceidas, an 

 Indian representative of the genus Bebryce (which before 

 had been known only from the Mediterranean), and one 

 of the Plexauridas." 



It seems surprising that as a matter of courtesy, quite 

 apart from other considerations, either the editor of these 

 Reports or the author of this supplementary one, could 

 have brought out this 8ist Part of the Challeftger 'R.^poris, 

 without any communication with or participation therein, 

 by Prof Wright, to whom the preparation of the Report 

 of the fixed Alcyonaria was originally committed. 



With personal matters the reader has no right to be 

 troubled, but he may well inquire why, when the Report 

 itself was published in 1889 as the joint work of two 

 Reporters, who narrate in their preface how pleasantly 

 they worked in unison, there should appear in the same 

 year this supplementary Report, written by but one of 

 the two, and why he should acknowledge " his great obli- 

 gations to Dr. Murray for enabling him to describe seven 

 new species, under his own name," which had been 

 found not by himself, but had been transmitted to him 

 by his co-reporter as new forms early in 1888. The dates 

 of the reception of the manuscript of this supplement 

 prove that it could have been easily added to the 

 appendix to the Report. 



This supplementary Report adds eight, not seven as 

 stated in the preface as quoted above, to the species 

 collected during the cruise of the Challenger. The 

 " Indian representative of the genus Bebryce " belongs to 

 the Muriceidas ; but the interesting Sarakka crassa, Dan. 

 belonging to the Alcyonidee must be added to the list. 

 Seven new species are described and figured, in addition 

 to the last mentioned species, and figures are given of 

 Siphonogorgia kollikeri and Telesto trichosteuuna which 

 were described in the original Report. To the fourteen 

 pages of the Report is added a list of the Alcyonaria 

 (Pennatulacea excepted) obtained during the voyage, 

 arranged according to the order of the stations at which 

 they occurred ; this comparatively useless record decuples 

 ten pages, and is followed by a four page account of the 

 bathymetrical range of the species, which takes no 

 account of the record of the ranges as given in the 

 original Report, which omits references to some of the 

 Challenger forms and alludes to a large number of genera 

 not found by the Challenger. 



The six plates have been well drawn by Armbruster of 

 Berne. 



The third Report and the last of the series is by Prof. 

 Ernst Haeckel, on the deep-sea Keratosa. 



It will be remarked that this is not a "supplementary" 

 Report to the Report on the Keratosa by Dr. Polejaeff 

 published in 1884, and it may be mentioned that the 

 forms herein described appear to be of a very doubtful 

 nature, " several spongiologists (among them some well 

 known authorities) had denied their sponge nature and 

 declared that these peculiar objects were either Rhizopods 

 or other Protozoa. Other naturalists on the contrary who 

 were closely acquainted with the Rhizopods, could not 

 acknowledge their Rhizopod nature, neither could they 

 make out the class to which they belonged." Possibly 

 Prof Haeckel was even one of these later for he tells us 

 that " A closer comparative examination of these doubtful 



