A more weigthy objection is the fact, twice recorded by von Koch (2), that not all the 
polyps of Antipathes glaberrima , but only half of the searched polyps have this third pair of 
secondary mesenteries, so that this characteristic has not an universal value for the whole 
colony, and within the boundaries of one and the same species twelve or ten mesenteries can 
occur; the heredity of this third pair of secondary mesenteries is in this case still extremely 
doubtful. — A second weighty argument against the retaining of the Dodekamerota I suppose 
to have found in the results of the anatomical research of one Eucirripcithes- species, viz. Eucirri- 
pathes contorta van Pesch (22). In this Eucirripathes I found beside the normal ten mesenteries, 
which are regularly found in all the other investigated Antipatharia, an extra-pair of secondary 
mesenteries. They were missing in the upper part of the oral cone, but in the lower sections 
they appeared half way of the cone. They were not situated as by Leiopathes between the 
normal secondary mesenteries and the primary transversal mesenteries, but between the normal 
secondary mesenteries and the primary sagittal ones; they reach not to the wall of the actino- 
pharynx and they descend lower than the other secondary mesenteries, even lower than the 
primary sagittal mesenteries. So there is a rather great difference between these secondary 
mesenteries and the third pair by Leiopcithes ; we have here a species, which not only can lay 
claim to the name of Dodekamerote, but also, according to Schultze’s opinion about the value 
of the mesenteries, could form a sub-tribe next to a sub-tribe, in which Leiopcithes should be 
placed, or could even form a tribe next to the three existing tribes. I am indeed of Schultze’s 
opinion that the form of the colony is not of great systematic value, but not only in the form 
of the corallum Eucirripathes contorta v. P. is very like the other Eucirripathes- species, but also in 
the structure and anatomy of the polyps it differs but very slightly from the other species, so that 
in this case we would have a phenomenon of convergency on such an extensive scale that 
only one single pair of secondary mesenteries would be exempted. The external conditions can 
surely influence the form of the corallum, but not to such an extent that the colony becomes 
unbranched, while the internal anatomy will certainly not be influenced so much by external 
conditions and be hereditary to a high degree, at least equal to that one inferior part: the 
mesenteries. So I am more inclined, still giving a great systematic value to the mesenteries, 
to find the third pair of secondary mesenteries not so important that they may characterize a 
sub-family. I am of opinion that it will be better to abolish the Dodekamerota and to join them 
to the Dekamerota, wherein the genus Leiopathes on afterwards indicated grounds will be joined 
to Antipathes. The names of Dekamerota and Hexamerota are no longer fit, at least the 
former, and since I prefer to see the difference between these sub-families in their having 
secondary mesenteries or not (in any arbitrary number) next to the always present primary 
mesenteries, I intend to name the Hexamerota Homoeotaeniales , since only one sort of mesen¬ 
teries is extant, and to join the Dekamerota and Dodekamerota of Schultze in the Hetero- 
taeniales , characterised by primary and secondary mesenteries too, therefore of different size. 
The Heterotaeniales are subdivided into two tribes, having peristomal folds or not, and which 
for the sake of easier indication can be called Ptuchaephora and Aptuchaephora , although I 
am somewhat reluctant in recognizing the importance of this folds, and I would not be very 
astonished if forms occurred, belonging to one of the genera of the Ptuchaephora, however 
