7 
details on the development of the ova, which apparently are liberated by the rupture of the 
polypwalls while the colony to all probability dies; Aphanipathes ? somervillei n. sp., hancocki 
n. sp., Antipathes ? heterorhodzos n. sp., which in my opinion is not an Euantipathes but an 
Eubathypa thes , nearly related to my Euba thy pa th es quadribrachiata but whose polyps are lack¬ 
ing so that this question is not to be decided, although not only the mode of branching but 
also the character of the spines, which are rather typical in the subgenus Eu ba thy pa thes , are 
in favour of my opinion; Ant. abies (Linn.) Gray var. paniculata Esper, Ant. gracilis Gray 
{non v. K. and T. and S.), Ant. herdmani, which is no sp. n. but a new name for Thomson 
and Simpson’s Ant. gracilis , which is discussed by me, in the review of the publication of 
these authors; Ant. virgata Esper, sealarki n. sp., plana n. sp., ceylonensis T. and S., inyrio- 
phylla ? Pallas, irregularis n. sp. — Although the colonies and especially the spines are figured 
in a very clear manner, it is to be regretted that, especially in the Stichopathes-spedes, the 
polyps are not figured (exc. Stick, seychellensis) while the description is rather short and 
lacking of details in this respect. The other genera are somewhat better provided but the des¬ 
cription is very cursory on the whole. While the enlargement of the figures on the plate is 
given, it is omitted in the pictures in the text, which is to be regretted, especially with regard 
to the spines. I will revert to several of these species in my systematic part. 
E. Silberfeld published in 1909 “Japanische Antipatharien” in the “Beitrage zur Natur- 
geschichte Ostasiens”. Silberfeld has taken the trouble to make a summary of genera and 
species, without making a critical review which would have greatly increased its value, since 
such a critical review until now is lacking and the forming of new species proceeds unimpeded. 
However, Silberfeld’s list would have been very useful if not serious omissions occurred in the 
enumeration of the species and even of the genera. Antipathes glaberrima Esper, described 
by von Koch, is omitted, Stichopathes gracilis var. a. Schultze is missing ; Aphanipathes Wol- 
lastoni (Gray) Brook and its variety pilosa Johnson do not belong to the species clubiae, where 
Silberfeld has put them down, for both the polyps were found and described. — The genus 
Arachnopathes is wholly lacking with all the species appertaining to it, and these are not found 
back in one of the other genera (e. g. Antipathes). 
The species-description is preceded by a short discussion of the points that come under 
consideration for the discrimination of species. Silberfeld regards the properties of the axis 
and the spines as the most weighty points. Under the Indivisae are described the already 
known species Stichopathes filiforniis (Gray) Brook and Cirripathes spiralis (Linn.) Blainv., 
while as new species are added: Stichopathes spinosa , Stick, japonica and Cirripathes densi- 
flora. In the little group of Crustosae a new genus Tropidopathes is formed with the only 
species Erop. saliciformis , found in one specimen, covering the branches of a colony of hydroid- 
polyps and armed with very broad spines, confluent on one side of the axis. — Under the 
Ramosae are described as known species Antipathes bifana Brook, Ant. japonica Brook, 
Aphanipathes abietina Pourt., Par antipathes ? columnaris Brook, while as new species are 
described Parantipathes tenuispina , Antipathes lata , Ant. densa, Ant. densifiora , Ant. pseudo- 
dichotoma and an Antipathes n. sp.? — On the plates are given very beautitul reproductions 
of various colonies but in the text an inconvenient deficit of detailpictures is to be regretted, 
