74 
and Johnson’s species shows from the type of Euantipathes dichotoma is the large distance 
between the spines; this deviation is less conspicuous if we consider the review of this part of 
the tabel, and this characteristic in itself is not sufficient to form a species. The elongation of 
the polyps, indicated in Roule’s figures and the base of the Antipathella-cha.Yd.cter , is not very 
conspicuous and is seemingly accentuated by the very strong distal inclination of the tentacles 
and by the small diameter of the branch. The colony figured by Roule is suited to the type 
of Euantipcithes dichotoma. — Johnson mentions i. a. the transversally elongated mouth, while the 
polyps in Roule’s figures have a round or sagittally elongated mouth! Johnson gives 30° — 40° as 
the angle between the branches, while this value in Roule’s colony can vary from 45 0 to almost 90 0 ! 
Paratylopathes atlantica L. Roule. The mode of branching of this species is widely 
divergent from that of Brook’s Tylopathes- type, and Roule calls attention to the likeness 
between the colony of Paratyl. atl. and the colonies of Antipathella- species. — The figures 
of the polyps and the spines agree very well with the type of Euantipcithes dichotoma , except 
in the greater interpolypar distance. In the text Roule gives as this distance 3 — 3.5 mm., but 
deduced from Roule’s figure a distance is found of 2 — 2.5 mm., a value which differs much 
less from the middle value in Euantipathes dichotoma. 
Paratylopathes Grayi L. Roule. This author says: “Les deux especes (viz. Paratylop. 
Grayi and atlantica ) sont fort voisines en somme”. -— - The colony figured by Roule is very 
much like the figure of Antipathes glaberrima v. Koch. — In most points there is no great 
difference between Parat. Grayi and atlantica ; the angle between the branches is larger in 
Parat. Grayi than in Parat. atlantica -— Not too much weight should be laid on Roule’s 
“dimorphisme of the polyps of Parat. Grayi. He describes polyps, which are very small and 
which are interpolated between the larger ones, but it is not clear for what reason Roule will 
not look upon this smaller polyps as young individuals and prefers to speak of dimorphism; I 
do not think this right. In either case: if it is a dimorphism, this dimorphism is present in most 
cases (if not all) of the described species, as is demonstrated by the preceding descriptions. Often 
I have described such young polyps or found them described by other authors, sometimes on 
an entire colony, sometimes only on a part of a colony, while the other part had uniform polyps. 
Antipathella Brooki Johnson (described by Brook as Antipathella gracilis Gray). This 
is a specimen described by Brook as Gray’s species, but which later on appeared to be not 
entirely identical with other specimens, found in Madeira, and described by Johnson as the true 
Antipathes gracilis Gray. Brook’s specimen got a new name from Johnson. — However the 
difference is not very great; Roule remarks on this point: “Dans la realite ces deux especes 
paraissent assez affines; les principales dissemblances portent sur les epines, moins nombreuses 
chez A. Brooki Johnson que chez A. gracilis Gray”. As in other respects the colonies are very 
much like each other, in my opinion these more crowded spines of Antipathes gracilis Gray 
are a transition from A. gracilis towards the middle type via Antipathes Brooki Johnson, for 
the distance of the spines is as follows (quite the opposite of what Roule remarks): in 
Antipathes gracilis Gray ± 1000 4, deduced from the figures, and in Antipathes Brooki 
Johnson much less viz. 230 4, deduced from Brook’s figure. This specimen shows frequent fusions 
of the larger branches, but as in some cases fusions are also recorded in varying degree (a single 
