KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 32. N:0 I. 21 



coenenchyma. There are small shallow pits in its mäss, with some three or five tubes 

 in the bottom, of which one or two are of more considerable size than the rest. There 

 is, no doubt, arrested growth of a few as Moseley says, while the surrounding tubuli con- 

 tinue to grow upwards around them, and in Heliolites again there is continued growth and 

 great changes in the bottom of the new calicle. In my paper I said that »aus diesem (the 

 coenenchyma) knospen neue Kelche hervor .... indem der neue Kelch sich aus mehreren 

 Coenenchymröhren ausbaut.» I was however not quite exact in saying that it went on 

 in the manner described by Moseley nor is the illustration, which was given there of 

 plate VII fig. 9 to the point, as it is questionable whether this is not rather a deca^dng 

 calicle or one overwhelmed by coenenchymatous growth as above described. Instead 1 

 hope that the sections given on plate ii of this memoir will be more convincing. If now, 

 as NiCHOLSON pretended, Heliolites is a dimorphous colony with sexual and asexual 

 individuals and that the latter form the coenenchyma, the stränge and abnormal fact 

 would here prevail, that a new sexual individual is budding out from the body of as 

 many as nine or more asexual individuals, which all build it up. Not to further speak 

 of the paradoxical of such a supposition it is enough to remind, that there does not exist 

 in the whole aniraal kingdom a..nj instance at all, that a single individual is formed as 

 a direct offspring from several others, the bodies of which entirely contribute to its 

 formation. 



In the same year as I published my views in Richthofen's China, though somewhat 

 låter, von Koch in his memoir »Ungeschlechtliche Verinehrung Palfeozoischer Korallen» 

 expresses himself very cautiously about this question and does not with a single word men- 

 tion my observations on what he låter calls »Gönenchymknospung». What he says ^ is: 

 »Gagen diese Ansicht (Nicholson's) hat Lindström verschiedene Griinde geltend gemacht, 

 von denen mir einer, die Entstehung eines Hauptkelches aus einer grösseren Anzahl von 

 rudimentären Polypen, als der wichtigste erscheint». Now this is somewhat ambiguously 

 expressed. The origin of a calicle from a great number of rudimentary polyps was not 

 one of my reasons, on the contrary I contested Nicholson's views on the ground that U 

 was impossible to accept such a supposition. 



In the »Zoologischer Anzeiger vol. i p. 103, 1878 (not 1881 as von Koch himself 

 wrongly writes in »Ungeschlechtl. Vermehrung» p. 10) in a paper, intitulated »Notiz iiber die 

 Zooide von Pennatula» he says »Ich habe nun bei der Betrachtung einer Anzahl von Exem- 

 plaren der Gattung Pennatula die Beraerkung gemacht, dass sich manchmal einzelne dieser 

 Zooide wie in jeder Beziehung normale Polypen entwickeln». This observation was, as 

 we shall see, most welcome to the adherents of the hypothesis of dimorphismus in Helio- 

 lites and they did not care for, that von Koch himself in his paper ^ expressly had said 

 that the circumstance that the Siphonozooids of the Pennatulids many times change into 

 genuine polyps is an objection against the dimorphismus, and likewise also the anatomy 

 of Heliopora. 



Waagen, no doubt seeing the iiupossibility of reconciling the view of the dimor- 

 phismus, to A\'hich he adhered, with the observations on the coenenchymal gemmation tried 



1 Ungeschlechtl. Vermebruug p. 10. 



K. Sv. Vet. Akad. Haudl. Band 32. N;o 1. 



