70 
pathes aenea v. Koch further on, where it will appear that von Koch only very reluctantly 
made it into a new species. 
Litophyte N° 9 (Marsigli). The data in the tabel I have immediately deduced from 
Marsigli’s figures although it is necessary to point out that Marsigli’s Plate XL fig. 179 is 
described by him as appertaining to the “Madrepore rameux”. But there can be hardly any 
doubt that this is an error, for fig. 179 is very much like fig. 103, with very slight differences. — 
It is difficult to bring the figured polyps in some degree in accordance with Antipatharian polyps, 
especially for the biserial distribution, which Marsigli’s figures in his figs 104 and 179 in the same 
manner. Only the clearly indicated spines make the Antipatharian character not longer doubtful. 
Antipathes arborea Dana. Dana himself says that this species has the habitus of Anti- 
pathes dichotoma Pall, but only is “more spreading in its branches”, which makes Brook remark 
that this is a character “which can scarcely be considered of specific value”. The only remaining 
specific difference is found in the dimensions of the spines, especially in their mutual distance, but 
I have demonstrated that the limits of this value are not sharply defined compared, with other 
species. Besides it must be kept in rnind that the spines figured by Pourtales (and from this figure 
the data in the tabel are deduced) - are inserted on a rather old branch which had already a 
diameter ot 400 u. and which probably began to show irregularities in spine-dimensions, as usually 
is the case on older parts. — Moreover I have taken the most unfavourable measurements, for 
Schultze (11 • p. 91) remarks about the mutual distance of the spines that up to six times this 
is the length of the spines, and this length is 120 — 150 11. — The specimen of Antipathes 
arborea D, figured by Milne Edwards shows a great likeness in habitus to the Siboga-specimens 
of station 250 (Kur). 
Rumphius' Foenum marinum , figured in his Herbarium Amboinense, on Plate LXXX in 
fife- 3^ i s greyish, brittle, and shrublike with a few curved, irregularly distributed branches, and is 
very much like Antipathes virgata Esp. Brook himself remarks that Foenum marinum “has a close 
resemblance (l; p. 100) to Antipathes arborea and so, via this species, to Antipathes virgata Esp. 
Antipathes foemcnlacea Pallas. The descriptions, given by various authors, are too vague 
to make out with certainty which species they have in view. But the figure in Boddaert’s 
translation of Pallas’ Elenchus gives the impression that it is a species, which as far as the 
form of the colony is concerned viz. angles of the branches, length and mutual distance of the 
branches, etc. is not very different from the type of Euantipathes dichotoma. But the spines 
or the polyps are nowhere described, so that only for the present this species is joined to 
Euantipathes dichotoma. Later on, it may be lifted out of this combination, if, what I greatly 
doubt, more facts become known in this case. Brook also says “that this species may be allied 
to Antipathes dichotoma Pall., if not identical with it” (spaced out by me). — Schultze’s 
words: “wenn iiberhaupt als selbstandige Art gerechtfertigt” etc. (11 ; p. 91) indicate also that in 
his opinion it was not sufficienty grounded that Antipathes foeniculacea was made a species, 
although Schultze’s opinion is principally based on the deficiency of the descriptions. 
Antipathes virgata Esper (description by Brook). The greatest deviation from Euantipathes 
dichotoma in this species are the fusions, which occasionally occur in the colony, which Brook 
found in the British Museum. But when I add to this i° that Brook says: “but, in most cases, 
