71 
the branches and branchlets are free”, 2° that the specimen in Copenhague shows no fusions, 
3° that, on Esper’s very clear figure of his Antipathes virgata there is no fusion whatever to 
be found, (F. Cooper makes mention of rare fusions between subbranches mutually and with 
the main stem) it is obvious, since Brook united all these specimens, that he himself did not 
lay great weight on the rare fusions and that in his opinion they did not constitute a specific 
character. From the polyps it is only known that they are large (Lacaze Uutpiiers), but our 
knowledge is not much greater than this vague term for F. Cooper, who described several 
colonies makes mention of the polyps, however without giving a full description; he says only : 
the polyps are normal in type, 2.5 mm. in diam., about four to a centimetre; the colour is white 
or brilliant sulphur-yellow. — The granulated surface of the spines is of no great importance 
since in parts of the colony the surface of the spines is entirely smooth, while the examining 
of the numerous Stichopathes-s'p&a.mens furnished proof of the great variability of this charac¬ 
teristic. — In his description of some specimens of Antipathes virgata Esp. F. Roule remarks 
(14; p. 77) that at first view Antipathes aenea v. Koch and Antipathes virgata Esp. are very 
much like each other, and that only at further examination there are differences visible. In 
A. virg. the branches are longer and more slender, more upright, e. g. branches of 3—4 cm. 
long are only 1 mm. in diameter, and they are inserted at a rather acute angle; the spines 
are larger and more heavily built, and show some slight differences in structure. — All these 
differences are made of no importance by a careful study of the tabel. 
Antipathes? lentipinna Brook. This species is made by Brook, who avails himself of 
one single specimen in the British Museum. This specimen differed from Antipathes virgata 
Esp. in its having a marked difference in diameter between the branches and the branchlets, 
and in Antipathes lentipinna having longer and more slender spines, with a more elongated 
base. Besides the branches are “more spreading”. As to this last point, it seems to me that 
a characteristic, which in Antipathes arborea is after Brook (and in my opinion rightly) of “no 
specific value”, in this case can not at once have acquired this value. — The other differences 
are not of such an importance that they justify the formation of a species; spines with an 
elongated base repeatedly occur together with other ones, just as spines which are longer or 
more acute. — The diameters of the axes of the Siboga-specimens, either increasing or diminishing, 
directly demonstrate the unstableness of this character. — The Siboga-specimen XI is like 
Antipathes virgata Esp. in the gradual decrease of the diameter of the branches, and it is 
like Antipathes? lentipinna Br. in the light colour of the branches, the smooth spines and the 
absence of fusions between the branches. Besides Antipathes virgata has on many .parts of the 
axis smooth spines, and the blunt spines of this species occur on XI, but between the more 
aculeate spines of the Antipathes? lentipinna-type , especially on the younger parts of the colony. 
Antipathes? mediterranea Brook. This species is a very good instance of the great 
variability of the angle between the branches in one and the same specimen. Besides this 
specimen is an instance of a colony, wherein only one single fusion occurs; as far as it is 
possible to conclude from Brook’s description, this fusion occurs in an old part of the colony; 
for the rest all the branches are free. — The polyps are badly preserved; Brook can only 
give a few relative statements. After Brook the spines of this species are in shape very much 
