4 
described species: Cirripathes ? diversa Brook 1 ), Cirripathes anguina Dana, Antipathes spinosa 
Carter and Antipathes pnmila Brook, while as new species appear Cirripathes gar diner i , which 
reminds very much of Cirripathes anguina Dana; Stichopathes maldivensis , Antipathes chota , 
Antipathes regularis, Antipathes rubra, Antipathes nilanduensis and Aphanipathes plantagenista , 
which has many points in common with Aphanipathes sarathamnoides Brook. These descrip¬ 
tions, not always given to such an extent as one could wish for, are accompanied by very 
efficient figures, which can not always make up for the loss of described details. By the genus 
Apiianipathes Forster-Cooper is right in remarking that the difference between the two genera 
Aphanipathes and Antipathes appears to be founded on very slight grounds. 
In 1905 L. Roule published his researches on the Antipatharia collected by the Prince 
of Monaco. He begins with a review of literature, published after Brook’s report. After that 
he treats the morphology, whereby we regret that the preservation of the material is not 
always efficient, especially of Stichopathes Richardi L. R. 2 ). Then follow oecology, taxonomy 
and subdivision, whereby Roule creates two new subgenera in the genus Tylopathes , viz. Eutylo- 
pathes and Paratylopathes. The phylogenetic part, in which the approach of the Antipatharia 
to the Ceriantharia is advocated next to the primitive and non-secundary structure of the Anti¬ 
patharia, is followed by the systematic part, wherein, together with the species, the generic 
determination of which is quite certain, four new species of Stichopathes are described, viz. Stich. 
flagellum , Stich. dissimilis , Stich. Richardi and Stich. abyssicola ; a new species of Antipathes , 
viz. A. vimmalis next to A. aenea v. Koch; Antipathella gracilis Gray; and from the new 
subgenera: Paratylopathes atlantica and P. Grayi. A new species of Leiopathes is described 
under the name of L. Grimaldii , while Parantipathes and Bathypathes are each represented 
by one known species, viz. Par. larix Esper and Bath, patula Brook. As species, the generic 
determination of which is not certain, are mentioned by Roule : Antipathes ? virgata Esper, 
Aphanipathes ? squamosa v. Koch, Aphanipathes ? erinaceus L. Roule; a new species of Tylo¬ 
pathes, , appertaining to the new subgenus Eutylopathes , viz. E . ? punctata-, Antipathella ? assi- 
milis Brook. Of course the terminology has to be altered in keeping with Schultze’s critical 
objections to Brook’s systematic views; together with the joining of the genera Antipathes 
and Tylopathes the subgenera Eutylopathes and Paratylopathes disappear, etc. — A descrip¬ 
tion of Ceriantharia is followed by a tabellary review of found species. — Later on I shall 
refer to several of these species in my systematic descriptions, but in general it is notable that 
in my opinion the formation of species by Roule has not always been placed on a proper 
footing so that various new species ought to be suppressed ; I admit that this is possible owing 
to the very detailed and precise descriptions given by Roule himself, together with the splendid 
pictures of colonies and polyps, while often many new species, described by other authors, are 
left in existence only because the very defective descriptions and the insufficient or wholly 
1) Without explication F.-C. omits the note of interrogation Brook placed after the generic name of this species; Brook had 
only the corallum without the polyps, and the specimen of F.-C. also misses the polyps. It remains therefore undecided whether we have 
in this case a Stichopathes or a Cirripathes. 
2) Roule s statement of the species through which he was able to make sections is not clear, as a part of the sentence is left 
out. The meaning is that sections are made through A. aenea v. Koch, Leiopathes glaberrima' Esper and Stich. Richardi L. R., the last 
of which especially was badly preserved. 
