5i 
Fig. 26. Euantipathes japonica (Br.) em. Polyps; 14 X- 
the axis ; only in degree of inclination the spines of opposite sides differ (fig. 25 a). The mutual distance 
is 105 u .; the spines do not perforate the polyps. 
The polyps (figs. 26, 27, 28) are inserted 
on the convex side of the colony-plane, always in 
a single series. On the younger parts the in- 
terpolypar distance is 0.8 mm., which value in¬ 
creases on the older parts. The sagittal tentacles are inserted at a slightly lower level than 
the lateral ones. The length of the sagittal tentacles is 0.25 mm., of 
the lateral ones 0.3 mm. The diameter of the cylindrical oral cone 
(fig. 2 J a) is 0.375 mm., the diameter of the mouth (if rounded) o. 15 mm., 
but the mouth is in some cases a transversally elongated slit (both 
forms occur in fig. 28). On the younger branches the polyps are some¬ 
what transversally elongated (fig. 28^), but on the older parts the 
tentacles are radiate (fig. 28 b and c). The spines perforate the coenen- 
chyma. The coenenchyma and the polyps show glassy spots on a milk- 
white ground (fig. 2 *]b)\ this spots stand on warts in concentrical rows 
round the tentacles and the oral cone. There are no young polyps 
between the adult ones. 
The description of this specimen is very much like that of 
\Antipathes\ bifaria Brook. Since the specific differences between [Anti- 
pathes\ bifaria Brook and \Antipathes\ japonica Brook are, after Brook, 
principally the mode of insertion of the ultimate branches, well or not 
in two rows, at an acute angle with one another, I am of opinion that 
the fact of the Siboga-specimen showing both modes of insertion of 
the ultimate branches on the same colony, is sufficient to unite both Brook’s species. The polyps, 
not described till now, make it very apparent to which genus this \Antipathes \-species belongs. 
[Antipathes] ulex E. and S. has also a mode of branching 
which is very much like the described one. The spines, which 
Brook describes, are 1 50 tj. long, they have a distance of 225 a and 
they are arranged in five longitudinal rows, so that it is very probable 
that, if the range of variability is better known, this species should 
be included in the species under consideration. As [Antipathies] 
spinosa (Carter) is very closely related to [ Antipathies] uhex E. 
and S., as Brook remarks himself, and differs principally in having 
dendritic spines near the base of the stem, it is to be remarked 
that the slender and aculeate spines on older parts are in other cases oftentimes a sign that 
on the base of the colony branched spines can occur. The Siboga-specimen of Euantipathes 
japonica could in this respect be an intermediate form between [Antipathes] ulex and spinosa. 
But since the material is not ample enough, I will for the time being not take a decision on 
this head and only indicate a possible union of all this forms; perhaps the line of nearly 
related forms could be extended towards Euantipathes viyriophylla (Pall.), so that all of Brook’s 
Fig. 27. Euantipathes japo¬ 
nica (Br.) em. a Polyps; 
b 'tentacles with spots; 
« 14 X; i> 52 X- 
» 0 
Fig. 28. Euantipathes japonica (Br.) 
em. a Polyps on the top of an ulti¬ 
mate branchlet; c polyps on a 
larger branch; a, b , c 11.3 X- 
