19 
wherein the gastral cavity is very narrow so that the body-wall and the periaxal sheath nearly 
touch each other, perforation of parts of the polyps by the spines occur. Again and again the 
anatomical examination of very diverging species and genera proved that the entodermal and 
mesogloeal sheath of the spines melt together with the body-wall and lift it up. — In my 
opinion it would be difficult to find a species which does not show this phenomenon at all. If 
one would use the term “perforating” only when the higher parts of the polyp viz. the oral cone 
and the tentacles are attained, I have only to say that this is also the case with many species 
of various genera, for instance specimen of Stichopathes variabilis (Silb.) n. n. appertaining to 
the var. longispina and other varieties, which also have very long spines. — The number of species, 
described by Brook and having well-perforated polyps is very small, since only two out of the 
fifteen described species, viz. Aph. sarothamnoides and Aph. cancellata , had polyps which could 
be examined. Following Brook’s descriptions (1) and figures, there are doubtless some species 
which have very developed spines, but there are also many species which are not especially 
abnormal in this regard and the polyps of which will be perforated or not, depending from the 
preservation, just as is the case with other genera. — The state of the spines of Aphanipathes 
humilis Pourt., as Pourtales depicts them, is truly very singular and will not be mixed up 
with the normal condition of the spines in other Antipatharia, and in the Siboga-material there 
are also such species which exceedingly long and numerous spines, forming dense moniliform 
dilations of the axis in the region of each polyp, e. g. Aphanipathes nndulata sp. n. and Aph. 
reticulata sp. n., but for many other species of Brook’s list this question cannot be decided, 
which is not to be wondered at, as the term “sessile”, used by Pourtales for some polyps, is 
the only reason which made Brook put them down as Aphanipathes- species. — That I am 
not the only one who is of this opinion, is made apparent by the following quotation of 
Forster-Cooper : (12) “the difference between the two genera Antipathies and Aphanipathes appears 
to me to be founded on very slight grounds. The main point distinguishing them lies in the 
fact that in the latter the spines are longer in the polyp areas and penetrate into the polyps 
themselves. In view of the fact that in some forms of Antipathes the spines are irregular in 
size and often very variable in different parts of the corallum, it seems that too much stress 
must not be laid on this point of difference. The other characters used by Brook to define 
the genus are also equally useless: ““Polyps small and inconspicuous””, ““more or less oval 
outline””, ““tentacles usually very short”” can all be applied to different species of the sub¬ 
orders Antipathes and Antipathella, the latter of which has already been merged into the former 
by Schultze. Probably further knowledge of the group at present under consideration will lead 
to the same fate”. — Although Forster-Cooper is in the wrong where he says that Brook’s 
Aphanipathes must have longer spines in the polyp areas, for this is a characteristic only given 
for the subsection B (pg. 122 of the Challenger Report) but not for subsection A, I am very 
much inclined to accept his conclusions. The Aphanipathes which he describes and figures, 
Aph. plantagenista F. C., has also spines which are very normal for an Antipathes , and 
differs from Aphanipathes sarothamnoides Brook only in its possessing polished spines. — Since 
there can be given no essential difference between Antipathes and Aphanipathes , a nearer 
relation of both genera is not to be avoided. It will not be necessary to merge them into one, 
