8 
the more disagreeable while the description is often very defective. The diagnoses, given by 
Silberfeld for every species are very far from characteristic ; in a genus as Stichopathes , poor 
as it is in sharply defined species and unmistakable characteristics, a diagnosis as c-Ren for 
Stichopathes spiuosa Silberfeld: “Gekrfimmte Stichopathes mit starken, etwa 280 u, hohen Dornen 
an einei Achse \ on fiber 1 mm. Durchmesser is absolutely useless, especially where a des¬ 
cription follows in which one can find little more than in the diagnosis. It is also a pity that 
Silberfeld omits the height ot the colonies, as a useless characteristic accordincr to him 
O ' 
whereby he forgets that the thickness of the axis without the height is of little value, but in 
e lei^ht can influence and define the habitus of the colony. — Silberfeld 
concludes with a few short remarks about the geographical distribution. 
In 1910 I described in the “Bijdragen tot de kennis van het genus Cirripathes” the 
Cirripathes-species collected by the “Siboga”. After a critical review of the formerly described 
Cirripathes- species, I thought fit, by reason of the great variability I found by these and other 
Antipatharia I examined, to join Cirripathes propinqua Brook and CiYr. flagellum Brook with 
Cirr. anguina Dana; Cirr. divers a Brook with Cirr. spiralis (Linn.) Blainv. : further I let 
Cirr. ? paucispina Brook and Cirr. ? n. sp. ? T. and S. intact, but both only by want of good 
data and through defective descriptions. The “Siboga”-material contained six new species, 
\ iz. C. liana , C . translucens, C. - contorta, C. musculosa , C. Rumphii and C. raniosa, while 
the formerly described C. anguina Dana and C. spiralis (Linn.) Blainv. could be more sharply 
defined on all points through the examining of numerous specimen. C. paucispina Brook was 
represented by a dubious specimen. As in the systematic part of this book I shall repeat in the 
main the conclusions of these “Bijdragen”, it will be sufficient to refer thither. Thanks to the 
mainly well preserved polyps, it was possible to examine the species in sections in the majority 
of cases, whereby facts were discovered which suggested the idea of regarding the division in 
Dekamerota, Dodekamerota and Hexamerota, introduced by Schultze, as useless. Further I 
succeeded in various cases to find a clearly developed musclesystem on the mesenteries. This 
part I also repeat in this book, so that I refer thither; sometimes a further examination com¬ 
pelled me to an other view about the facts I found. — In the phylogenetic part I concluded 
that the Antipatharia may be considered as primitive forms, but the joining of Antipatharia 
and Ceriantharia to Ceriantipatharia I judged not desirable. — On the investigation of the 
Cirripathes- species I would rather found my belief that the branched colonies are not the 
phylogenetically younger forms, as Roule says, but rather the unbranched colonies. 
In the same year (1910) Kinoshita described a new Antipatharian, viz. Hexapathes 
heterosticha n. g. n. sp., in the Annot. Zool. Japon. — The making of this new genus is a 
consequence of Schultze’s ideas about the systematic value of the number of mesenteries, since 
probably Kinoshita, without this classification, would not have made a new genus. The 
specimen in question is very nearly related to Bathypathes , especially to Bathypathes lyra Brook. 
Since there are only three pairs of mesenteries and the colony has a wholly other habitus than 
the hexamerote Cladopathes plumosa , Kinoshita has made the new genus Hexapathes. _ The 
specimen which forms genus and species comes from the Sagami-Bay. 
