5 
lacking figures make it impossible to judge of them positively. We would be wholly content 
if Roule’s example of detailed and precise description would be followed more generally in a 
group so rich in transitions and with such a great variability. 
In 1905 was also published J. A. Thomson, “Report on the Antipatharians”, the des¬ 
cription of the species collected by the Scottish Antarctic Expedition. There were 12 specimen 
of 3 species, all pertaining to Bathypathes Brook. Five specimen belonged to B. patula var. 
plenispina Br., one specimen to B. alternata Br. and the other six formed a new species, 
viz. B. bifida , whose properties very clearly differ from the formerly described species. The 
microscopical anatomical-research was unsuccessful since the preservation in formol was apparently 
a bad fixative for these animals; the sections made by Thomson were useless. — Thomson 
complies with the opinion that by Bathypathes dimorphism does not occur. 
In 1905 Thomson and Simpson published their Suppl. Report on the Antipatharia in 
Herdman’s Report on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of Ceylon. The collection included 13 species, 
nine of which seemed to be new: Antipathes gallensis and gracilis ; Stichopathes ceylonensis, 
contorta and papillosa ; Antipathella rugosa , elegans , irregularis and ceylonensis , while specimen 
were found from Antipathes abies Gray, Stich. gracilis Gray (a new variety: spiralis ) and 
Stich. echinulata Br. Before the systematic description a few general remarks are made, where 
from it is apparent that the authors have kept in view the great variability of the form and 
the distribution of the spines, especially in the unbranched colonies, while also the length and 
the degree of transparency of the tentacles did not seem to them to be a safe criterion, vary¬ 
ing as it was with the degree of contraction and the mode of preservation of the polyps. The 
antlerlike growth of the spines on the base of some species may, according to the authors, be 
due to a pathological condition. — In Stich. papillosa T. and S. a knoblike projection was 
observed, indicating the remains of a branch. —- The various new species, described by Thom¬ 
son and Simpson, will be dealt with occasionally in my systematic part, for in some cases I 
had to join some of these to formerly described species. — It is only to be regretted that the 
figures, especially of the spines, are of too schematical a character as to be of much use, 
while for an incomprehensible reason the enlargement of the figures is not given, which impairs 
their value very much, especially since numerical data are not given in the text. — A point 
of minor importance is that the name of Antipathes gracilis cannot be given to T. and S.’s 
new species, since this name was used by von Koch in a prior publication (1889). Antipathes 
gracilis v. K. is not identical with T. and S.’s species, and F. Cooper (1909) has called it: 
Antipathes herdrnani n. sp, (which ought to be “(T. and S.) n. n.”). Thomson and Simpson remark 
that this species most closely approaches to Antipathes spinosa (Carter) but differs from it both 
in the mode of branching and in the character of the spines. But on comparing Brook’s description 
with that of T. and S.’s colony the difference is not very great and may be considered as remaining 
within the limits of the individual variability, for the mode of branching as well as for the shape 
of the spines ; so it will be better to identify T. and S.’s colony with Antipathes spinosa (Carter) but 
in view of the polyps described by Thomson and Simpson for the first time, this species should 
be included in the genus Par antipathes, as Par: spinosa (Carter) n. n.; the shape of the colony 
is in accordance with this view. So the new name, given by Cooper, had to be suppressed. 
