20 
but it is not desirable to consider them as farther related than as sub-genera at the utmost. — 
In my opinion it will be best to include in the sub-genus Aphanipathes only those species 
which really have exceedingly long and numerous spines so that each form ot polyp would be 
easily and thoroughly perforated by them, as is the case in the above-mentioned species Aph. 
humilis Pourt., Aph. (?) Somervillei F.-Cooper, Aph. reticulata sp. n., Aph. undulata sp. n. etc., 
while the other ones can be added to the sub-genus Euantipathes , which is made by merging 
Leiopathes into Antipathies. Both these sub-genera constitute the genus Antipathies. — However 
it is necessary to make a reservation since in Brook s list of Aphaniphates also species occur, 
which in their mode of branching are very much like other genera. So is mentioned by Brook 
Aphanipathes (?) abietina (Pourt.) of which a very beautiful figure is given by Pourt ales him¬ 
self on his PI. IX fig. io. — This colony is branched in the very same manner as is distinctive 
of the genus Par antipathies-, the principal stem bears the unbranched pinnules on all sides and 
besides there are on every specimen one or two wormtubes. The only reason which Brook 
mves for placing this species not by Parantipathes but by Aphanipathes is that Pourtales 
describes the polyps as shorttentacled and surrounded by larger spines than those on the rest 
of the pinnule. — I should like to exclude this species of the union of Antipathies and Apha¬ 
nipathes and to join it to Parantipathes where it clearly belongs to, although the type of the 
polyp is very vague: other Par antipathies- species often have also very short-tentacled polyps. 
Also Aphanipathes (?) jilix (Pourt.), mentioned by Brook, would be added to Parantipathes 
since the principal difference between Aph. filix and abietina is, according to Brook, whether 
or not the position of the pinnules is verticillate. — Aphanipathes (?) barbadensis Brook would 
also be included into Parantipathes , as, according to Brook, it recalls the habit of Paranti- 
pathes harix “from which indeed it is undistinguishable at first glance” (l). However there are 
five instead of six rows of pinnules, which are not simple everywhere. The secondary pinnules 
“recall the more complicated arrangement in Parantipathes hirta (Gray) . The difference in 
length of the spines is not very great if in this respect we compare Brook’s figures (l PI. XI, 
fig. i and fig. 4), while the polyps of this Aph. -species are unknown; also in this case we 
should call it Parantipathes barbadensis Brook. Perhaps Aph. alata Brook and Aphi. wollastom 
(Gray, MS.) have to suffer the same fate but it is not necessary to give more instances here 
of the manner in which Brook’s genus Aphanipathes ought to be divided. 
Parantipathes Brook is also kept intact by Schultze (6), with the diagnosis: “Person in 
der Richtung der Skeletaxe stark verlangert (die Sagittalaxe des Korpers betragt nur Ys °der 
Y) der Transversalaxe). Tentakel isoliert stehend zu drei weit von einander entfernten Paaren 
geordnet”. So this type of polyp is very well, to be distinguished from the type of polyp of 
Antipathies , although one should keep in view that an elongation of the polyps in the direction 
of the colony-axis can also occur on the younger branches of Antipathies- colonies, where this 
elongation is made necessary by lack of space. Brook (1) gives other generic characteristics besides, 
e. g. “a simple or rarely branched stem with simple spiral or verticillate branches ; so the 
whole colony acquires a bottle-brush appearance. This type occurs also in various species, 
described by Brook as [Antipathes]-species, viz. in his group B Antipathidae cupressoides, whereby 
“the corallum is more or less cylindrical, of the bottle-brush-type ’ (1)— It is true that [ Antipa - 
