14 
The separate genera require now to be examined. To the Dendrobrachiidae belongs 
only Dendrobrachia Brook which can be let unchanged and of which we know very little. To 
the Homoeotaeniales belong next to Brook’s genus Cladopathes , Kinoshita’s Hexapathes and 
my new genus Sibopcithes. Brook’s diagnosis of Cladopathes (l) can not be used in unchanged 
condition, since Brook’s generic diagnosis, as is observed by former authors, not always give 
trustworthy generic characteristics. It is difficult, in a group so variable as the Antipatharia, 
not having an abundancy of characteristics, to strictly separate the generic and the specific 
qualities. So it is very doubtful if the “much-crowded polyps” are a generic characteristic, since 
by other genera within one and the same species the intertentacular distance of the polyps is 
very variable. Also of questionable generic value is “the very long stomodaeum, reaching nearly 
to the periaxial sheath of the sclerenchyma”, and it is the same with the numerous folds ot 
the stomodaeum. The thickness of the mesogloea is absolutely unavailable as generic charac¬ 
teristic since the influence of the fixatives and the preserving fluids on this thickness is very 
great. The mesogloeal cells I found in very divergent genera and often within one and the same 
genus as well as not at all. It is difficult to use the characteristics of the spines as generic charac¬ 
teristics, especially in view of the -fact that only one species is on hand ; the same can be said 
of the form of the colony and the mode of branching. Since only the habit of the polyps 
(“dimorphic zooids”) and the existence of the only three pair of mesenteries remain as generic 
characteristics with the doubtful points : a cylindrical oral cone, a very long stomodaeum and 
a longest diameter of the stomodaeum not coinciding with the sagittalaxis, it would be pos¬ 
sible to unite Kinoshita’s Hexapathes (23) with Brook’s Cladopathes ; the mode of branching of 
Hexapathes is very much like Bathypathes lyra Brook, but this not necessarily establishes a 
generic difference, since a case of convergency is not excluded. At the utmost the form of the 
colony of Hexapathes can indicate a nearer connection between these Homoeotaeniales and the 
Ptuchaephora, especially Bathypathes and herein the sub-genus Eubathypathes. The form of the 
polyps by Hexapathes : “polyps elongate in transverse axis; mouth situated on a high projec¬ 
tion of peristome; stomodaeum long, nearly reaching the axis sheath; mesenteries six in 
number”, is very much like those of Cladopathes. The different thickness of the mesogloea is 
not necessarily an objection to this assembling as I previously remarked. Sibopathes can not be 
considered as a near enough relation of Cladopathes and Hexapathes to unite them, since, as 
will be seen in the anatomical part of this book, the anatomy is very primitive so that the 
difference with Cladopathes is too great. 
To the tribe of the Ptuchaephora appertain the genera Taxipathes Brook, Schizopathes 
Brook and Bathypathes Brook. Concerning the two latter genera it must be remarked that 
their union would certainly be very desirable. While Taxipathes at least is easily distinguishable 
by its peculiar mode of branching Schizopathes and Bathypathes are very much like each other 
in this and other respects, viz. next to the mode of branching the form of the spines and the 
polyps, also the anatomy e. g. the very thin mesogloea and such like. — Both these genera 
with their pinnate mode of branching chiefly differ in the form of their base. The base of 
Schizopathes is not fixed to an other object but free, flattened and tapering, more or less 
hooked up at the extremity, while the colony of Bathypathes is fixed in the normal manner 
