REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 
In his Report on the Antipatharia (Challenger, Part LXXX) Brook has given a very 
comprehensive and extensive critical review of previous literature, and although one could make 
objections to his opinion in various cases, these objections are not of so fundamental a value 
as to make it necessary to repeat this critical review. I shall refer to these objections as 
soon as there is occasion for it in the systematic description of the species. I will not allude 
to the literature published between the Challenger Report and Roule’s “Description des Anti- 
pathaires et Cerianthaires”, as far as Roule discussed it, but with the same reservation as 
mentioned above. My review could be limited to the literature published since 1905, if not 
a publication, indespensable for my systematic considerations, was omitted by Brook, since it 
was published at the same time as Brook’s Report, while Roule does not mention it in his 
critical review of literature. Roule did not notice that von Koch’s research was published 
before the Challenger Report but still too late to be taken into account to Brook’s descriptions 
of species. — I have in view the publication of G. von Koch: Die Antipathiden des Golfes 
von Neapel. It contains the description of five species, viz. Antipccthes glabernma Esper, which 
Brook had placed in his new genus Leiopathes as Leiopathes glabernma ; Antipathes gracilis 
n. sp.; Antipathes subpinnata Ellis, which Brook mentions in his book under the name of 
Antipathella subpinnata (E. and S.) non Gray; Antipathes lanx Esper — Brooks Par anti¬ 
pathies larix (Esper); Antipathes aenea n. sp. Together with a detailed description of these 
species, elucidated by very good figures, von Koch has given a general account ol the polyp- 
structure, histiology, sclerenchyma and some biological details, especially the growth of the 
colony. In his description of species he also gives anatomical details. 
In Roule’s review of literature, and in his bibliography, we also miss C. Forster-Cooper, 
Antipatharia published in 1903 in the Fauna and Geography of the Maidive and Laccadive 
Archipelagoes (vol. II) edited by J. Stanley Gardiner. He describes Antipatharia pertaining to 
the four genera Cirripathes , Stichopathes , Antipathes and Aphanipathes. Forster-Cooper calls 
attention to the difficulty of making out which properties form a species, since transitions and 
a considerable variability occur. As the anatomical research was unsuccessful through bad pre¬ 
servation, Forster-Cooper had to found his species on / method of growth, 2 colour, 3 size of 
polyps and their distribution on the corallum, p shape of the polyp and its tentacles, 5 size, 
shape and distribution of spines, and presence or absence of secundary spines ; especially the 
fifth point was taken into account. Forster-Cooper himself says that it is doubtful whether it 
will ultimately prove a natural classification. — Specimen were found pertaining to the formerly 
