66 
variable in one and the same specimen, as is demonstrated by the descriptions and the figures. 
Oral cone. Herein there are three cases to be discriminated, one of which however 
(oral cone with concave sides) is possibly a special condition of preservation of the first case. 
large and swollen: I, III, IV, XII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXIX, 
XXX, XXXIV, XXXVI, XXXVIII; (VI, XVII, XX and XXXII are of middle size). 
large, with concave sides: XIII, XV, XXI. 
low: V, X, XI, XXXIII, XXXVII. 
If the second group is added to the first, the majority of the specimens has a large 
oral cone, while only a few have a low cone; XXXII can serve as a transition between them, 
besides counting the fact that in one and the same colony the oral cone is not equally con¬ 
spicuous in all the polyps. 
Mouth. The shape of the mouth can be as follows: 
round: I, III, V, VI, X, XI, XII (?) XIV, XV, XVII, XXI, XXX, XXXVI. 
round or sagittally elongated: IV, XXXIII (somewhat), XXXVII. 
sagitally elongated : XXIII, XXIX, - XXXII (?), XXXIV (?). 
transversally elongated: XIII, XVIII. 
In the other cases the shape of the mouth was not to be made out. — As a rule 
we may say that the mouth is small and round, or somewhat sagittally elongated. — The 
transversal elongation of XIII and XVIII (a type, which does not greatly differ from V, which 
has a round mouth) is not practicable for specific differences because the shape of the mouth 
is not very stable, as was hardly to be expected through the different states of preservation. 
Interpoly par distance. It is not to be denied that very large oscillations occur 
in this respect, but I must say that many of the greater distances are derived from descriptions, 
which gave this distance only in a very arbitrary manner. If besides one keeps in mind that 
in many cases young polyps alternate (sometimes rather regularly) with the adult ones, so 
that the interpolypar distance increases while the young polyps are at the same time still too 
small to be seen on a superficial inspection, and even entirely invisible when the preservation is bad, 
it is easy to conceive that in some cases the distance is given nearly twice too large. To this 
should be added that the numerical data of the authors not always agree; e. g. von Koch 
gives as interpolypar distance of Antipathes glaberrima 1.75 mm. while from Brooks figures 
can be deduced 2.5 mm. Such may also have been the matter in the descriptions of the 
here-discussed species. 
The distance varies round a middle-value of 1.5 mm. in I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, X, XI, 
XIII «, XIV, XVI, XVII, XX, XXI, XXII, XXXII, XXXVII. 
Somewhat larger deviations are : 
1.9 mm.: XVIII; 1.75— 2 mm.: XV; to 2 mm.: XII, XIIIjS, XXXV, 2.5 mm.: Antipathes 
foeniculacea Pallas, XXV; 3 mm.: XXVII (?), XXXIII, XXXIV; 3 — 3-5 mm.: XXXVIII. 
A clearly defined limit is nowhere to be observed; where an individual variability of at 
least 0.5 mm. is very frequent, it is not to be expected that 0.5 mm. can be used as a specific 
difference between two specimens. 
As to the two following characteristics: the occurrence of isolated very large polyps, 
