72 
like those of Antipathes arborea Dana. This and the mode of branching are the only facts, 
which could be described with certainty. Neither characteristic is sufficient to form a new 
species, next to Euantipathes dichotoma. 
Antipathes fur cat a Gray (diagnosis by Schultze and description by Brook). Brook says 
that the specimen in the British Museum was “some large species, allied to Antipathes virgata 
Esper”. The number of longitudinal rows of spines is 6 after Brook, and 5 — 6 after Schultze, 
while I can deduce even a smaller number (4 — 5.) from Brook’s figures of the spines, but I 
have used Schultze’s statement. The deviations from the type of Eiiantipathes dichotoma are very 
small and become even less if we keep in view both varieties, which Schultze describes (11). — 
Both these varieties differ, if possible, even less from the type of Euantipathes dichotoma. Their 
number of longitudinal rows is 4 or 4(— 5). However these varieties differ in some points, 
especially in structure of the polyps, but the characteristic predomination of the proximal pair 
of lateral tentacles is not entirely absent in varietas ( 3 ; some polyps show it while it is regular 
in varietas a. Besides in Schultze’s opinion the habitus of the polyps is only of slight value, 
as it is easily influenced by the preservative fluids; also the difference in distance of the 
spines, etc. is of no great importance. — Varietas a is represented by a specimen with and 
one without polyps, and var. |3 by a fragment, all of them of the same locality. This is a 
reason the more to follow Schultze’s example and not to make species of this varieties, and 
even to interpolate them in the series of Euantipathes dichotoma (Pall.), whereto both of them 
obviously appertain, just as the original species Antipathes ftircata Gray. 
Antipathella elegans Thomson and Simpson. It is difficult to judge of this species, since 
the enlargement of the figures is not given. However the deviation in dimensions is not very 
large, if estimated in report to the diameter of the axis. Moreover the description of the colony 
is rather vague at some points; however the characteristics, which may be derived from it, are 
not very different from those of Euantipathes dichotoma. The angle between the branches is 
not given but the colony is dichotomically branched (probably is meant: pseudodichotomically). — 
The authors mention a great elongation of the polyps in the direction of the colony-axis but 
there are no figures, which might verify this point; since “the polyps occupy a length, cor¬ 
responding to four spines in a longitudinal row'’ we must judge from this remark and from 
the given figures of the spines that the polyps will not be elongated to so very remarkable a 
degree, at all events not more than is the case with various specimens on the younger branches. 
The round mouth and the large oral cone also occur in Euantipathes dichotoma. 
Antipathes viminalis Roule. After Roule himself Ant. viminalis approaches “sensible- 
ment" Antipathes aenea v. Koch. They differ only in number and length of the branches, and 
in the dimensions and mutual distance of the polyps. Roule remarks (14) : “G. von Koch a decrit 
sous le nom d 'Antipathes gracilis une espece qui me parait correspondre a une variete d’ Ant. 
aenea , differente du type, comme le nom l’indique, par la gracilite des rameaux et par la 
petitesse plus grande (sic!) des polypes. Sans doute cette variete equivaut-elle a Ant. mediter- 
ranea Brook . De plus, cette espece differe d’An tip. viminalis par la plupart des 
caracteres invoques pour separer cette derniere d'Antip. aenea , notamment par sa ramification 
plus touffue et plus courte, par ses epines moins nombreuses, et par ses polypes plus serres. 
