18 
much by nearer examination. As I was obliged to give a critical review of the until now des¬ 
cribed Leiopathes-spzdzs, by my description of species, it is not necessary to repeat this des¬ 
cription in extenso here, but I can point out my conclusions, viz. I have joined Antipathes 
glaberrima Esper, described by von Koch in his Antipathidae of the Bay of Naples (2), Leio- 
pathes Grimaldii Roule (14), Leiopathes expansa Johnson (9) and Leiopathes glaberrima Esper (1) 
to Antipathes glaberrima Esper with the following species-diagnosis: colony with angular bends, 
branched irregularly and in high degree, often elliptical in section, black, on the older parts 
polished and glossy, branches at right angles to the branches of lower order, sometimes in one 
plane, interbranchial distance max. 2 cm., length of the ultimate branches max. 3 cm.; spines 
only on the younger branches, triangular, in 4 rows, length 40 — 75 p, distance 400—800 p, at 
right angles with the axis-, polyps with dome-shaped oral cone and round or sagittally elongated 
mouth, sagittal tentacles 0.8 — 1.5 mm., lateral tentacles 0.5 — 1 mm., sagittal tentacles at a 
lower level than the lateral ones, length of all the lateral tentacles is the same, sagittal ten¬ 
tacles often horizontally projecting, lateral one? vertical or lying against the oral cone; yellow, 
red to warm brown. — On comparing this diagnosis with the characteristics of other Antipathes- 
species e. g. Euantipathes dichotovia (Pallas), whereby the very variable qualities must be kept in 
view, which I placed together in the table of Euantipathes dichotoma (Pallas), there is so great a 
likeness between both species that at first I was inclined to join both species. At all events the 
difference between Euantipathes dichotoma (Pallas) and the species of Leiopathes is not so great 
as between various Antipathes- species mutually. Almost every characteristic of Leiopathes glaber¬ 
rima is represented in Euantipathes dichotoma (Pallas), except the extreme poverty of spines on 
the older parts of the colony. The typical curvature of the branches in an opposite direction 
to the branches of higher order, mentioned by Roule (14) for Leiopathes Grimaldii , is also present 
in various specimen of Euantipathes dichotoma (Pallas) (table: spec. IX). However the number of 
mesenteries is a clear difference between Euantipathes dichotoma and Leiopathes glabei^nma , but 
in my opinion it is not desirable to keep Leiopathes intact as a genus, merely on ground of the 
relative poverty in spines and a difference in mesenteries, which difference, as is demonstrated by 
an Eucirripathes- species, not only can occur within the boundaries of a genus, but which, as is 
demonstrated by von Koch’s formerly quoted words, occurs only by half of the polyps and so is 
not even constant within the boundaries of the species itself. — It is better to join the genera 
Leiopathes M. Edw. and H. and Antipathes (Pallas) Sch. in a single genus Antipathes. 
Something like this must take place with the genus Aphanipathes Brook, retained by 
Schultze, with the diagnosis (6): polyps obscure, oval, frequently hidden by the elongate spines; 
tentacles very short ; corallum pinnate, paniculate or flabellate, with or without confluence of 
parts ; spines elongate and slender. — Typical is the perforation of the polyps by the long 
spines. An objection is that the perforation of the polyps (better: the visibility of this perfora¬ 
tion) is very subject to the condition of preservation and certainly it is possible to say with 
Schultze: “der Weichkorper der Person wird ganz normalerweise von den Dornen der Skelet- 
axe durchbohrt”, but if there is only one single colony, as often is the case, it is very difficult 
to decide whether or no its condition is the normal one. — In the second place I can see 
only a gradual difference between the spines perforating the polyps or not, since in most cases, 
