without having peristomal folds, for it is difficult to decide where an indentation between two 
thirdparts of a polyp ends and where a fold begins. 
The Aptuchaephora contain the Crustosae, the Ramosae and the Indivisae, but here also 
I must object to the existing arrangement, made by Brook and partly by Schultze. Doubtless 
Schultze’s opinion about the desirability of the establishing of the subtribe Crustosae is more 
founded than Brook’s method, who described the hereto-belonging genus and species as an 
Aphanipathes ( A. pedata ) without giving the remarkable method of growth its full due. — 
Schultze (6) suffers the subtribes of the Ramosae and Indivisae to be left intact, but I am of 
opinion that certainly this subdivision is not a natural one ; in view of Schultze’s opinion 
about the small value of the form of the colony, I am somewhat surprised that he has taken 
this subdivision from Brook. The research of the specimens collected by the Siboga has fixed 
my opinion that it is not desirable to retain the Indivisae as a sub-tribe. In the first place it 
is often not practicable to decide whether a specimen belongs to an unbranched or a branched 
species. In one case ( Euantipathes dichotoma, specimen from station Kur) I had two colonies, 
without any doubt belonging to the same species, but one unbranched and the other branched. 
Regard the possibility, which certainly is not too absurd, of finding only the unbranched speci¬ 
men ; in this case I would certainly have considered it as a Stichopathes-s^ec\.o.s^ unless we 
considered the form of the polyp rightly as of more importance; and that on this grounds I 
had put the colony in an Antipathes- species. — We come across this sort of cases more than 
once and it is conceivable that various Stichopathes-S'pec\Q's> , especially the smaller ones, are young' 
and still unbranched colonies of branched species. Such a case occurred by Euantipathes longi- 
brachiata\ Silberfeld (21) has described under the name of Stichopathes japonica a species from 
the Enoura-bay. This species was represented by colonies lacking the natural base, but as this 
occurs very often and as the colony was unbranched, it is easy to conceive that Silberfeld 
described it as a Stichopathes. The Siboga-material contained an Eziantipathes- species with 
exceedingly long branches, which themselves were further unbranched over a very long distance. 
Hereby I found some fragments, so long and also unbranched, that at first I considered them 
as a Stichopathes , but on further examination there was no possible doubt about their belonging 
to the branched colonies, as snapped of branches with a maximum-length of ninety cm.; the 
colonies showed a great number of such branches in sound condition. In the form of the 
corallum, the structure of the polyps, the characteristics of the spines and even, in some ana¬ 
tomical points mentioned by Silberfeld, the Siboga-specimen and Silberfeld’s fragments were 
so like each other that without any doubt both colonies are identic. It is evident that by 
accident Silberfeld got only snapped off branches, and by the same accident of a species 
the branches of which are abnormally long. — - So it is extremely difficult, from a practical point of 
view, to keep the Indivisae and the Ramosae asunder. 
But there is still another objection. Johnson (9) makes mention of a specimen of Sticho¬ 
pathes gracilis Gray, with a spineless branch of 150 mm. ! As a probable cause of this 
anomaly Johnson remarks that the true top is snapped off 4—5 inches above the branch, so 
that the colony has continued its growth in this manner. But the following data are found in 
normal and undamaged colonies; Thomson and Simpson (15) observed in Stichopathes papilloscc 
