17 
generally, (but not without exceptions) but I saw these qualities also in various other genera, 
in Eucirripathes too. As I remarked before the form of the polyps is too varying to be fit for 
generic differences. — As the principal difference the distribution of the polyps remains. But 
even to this regard both genera are not sharply separable; as I remarked in my publication on 
the genus Cirripathes (22), various colonies ( Eucirr. Rumphii v. Pesch, Eucirr. spiralis (Linn.) 
Blainv., and Eucirr. musculosa v. Pesch) which ordinarely have a polyserial distribution of polyps 
round the axis, have an uniserial polypdistribution on the top of the colony over a distance, which 
is a not unimportant part of the whole length of the colony. While this fact occurs in older 
colonies, younger specimen sometimes show along the whole length of the colony an uniserial 
distribution. Of course the practical conclusion of this is that, especially by the minor colonies, 
it is very probable that Eucirripathes- species are described as Stichopathes. — Also it is possible 
that in some cases it is difficult to take a decision; e. g. Eucirripathes musculosa is very much 
like Stichopathes variabilis (Silb.) n. n. not only in external structure but also in anatomy. By 
Eucirr. musculosa however the polyps are not arranged in one series but irregularly round the 
stem, while Stick, variabilis (Silb.) has an uniserial polypdistribution ; Brook would have them 
considered as two indisputable species. However by Stick, variabilis (Silb.) there are, truly 
rarely, curves in the series of polyps, sometimes even turning once round the entire stem; so 
the difference with Eucirripathes musculosa is so* slight that I would have united both species 
if not anatomical differences e. g. the muscles of the mesenteries, joined the differences in polyp¬ 
distribution. — So it would be feasible to unite both genera when not very large and clearly 
older colonies occurred, having an uniserial polypdistribution over their total length; therefore 
it is less improbable that this characteristic is a natural one. As however both genera are very 
nearly related, it seems to me desirable to consider Cirripathes and Stichopathes as sub-genera 
of a genus Cirripathes , which name I retain since the unbranched colony becomes the principal 
characteristic; Cirripathes Brook can as sub-genus wear the name of Eucirriwatkes. The sub¬ 
genera differ in the distribution of the polyps round the stem. — Cirripathes ramosa v. Pesch (22) 
is a species, whereby very rare but well developed branches exist; not lower than one metre 
above the broken base a dichotomy occurs in two equivalent branches, both many dm. in 
length, while only one of them shows a trace of a second branching; the habitus is wholly 
like that of other Cirripathes-s^Q.c.\&s,. Although in my publication on the genus Cirripathes I 
have called this branched species Cirripathes , I do not think it desirable to keep it in this 
subgenus. The branches, although they are very sparingly distributed, are so much longer than 
in the other Eucirripathes- species where branches occur, and in a so much more normal pro¬ 
portion to the length of the colony that it will be better to keep them apart, so that the 
former Cirripathes ramosa v. Pesch now appertains to a new genus Hillopathes, which in the 
distribution of the polyps round the axis, or rather in a non-uniserial arrangement, combined 
with a decidedly branched colony is a transition from Antipathes (especially Etiantip at lies') to 
Eucirripathes. — One of Brook’s species incertae sedis is joined by me to this new genus. 
The generic characteristics of Leiopathes , given by Brook (1), are principally the very slight 
development of the spines and the sixth pair of mesenteries. — The other generic qualities have 
in my opinion very slight weight, since the number of species, as yet very scanty, diminishes very 
SIBOGA-EXPEDITIE XVII. 3 
