78 
very different, for Brook gives: “1—2001. apart”, while the branch, which Brook described, was 5.5 cm. 
long and bore eight branches, so with an average distance of less than 1 cm. So in this regard 
there is no great choice between both species. The branches of Leiop. Grim, lying in a plane and forming 
a fan-shaped colony, while the branches of Leiop. glaberr. are directed towards all sides, constitute a 
specific chaiacter, the value of which is very much lessened, when we see how in Euantipathes dichotoma 
specimens of the same locality (station 144) are in every respect completely similar, except that one 
specimen is branched in a plane and the other not! 
The length of the branches is approximately 1 cm. in Leiop. Grim, and 1—3 cm. in Leiop. glaberr., 
which values are neither very unequal. — The interpolypar distance of Leiop. Grim, is very variable and 
is according to Roule’s description 1.6 mm. at the utmost and according to his figure 1.8 mm.; BROOK 
calls attention to the also very variable interpolypar areas of his colonies: 1 — 2 mm. distance between 
two polyps, which value, according to Brook’s figure, is equivalent with 1.5 to 2.5 mm. as intertentacular 
distance. Xot only this data deviate very slightly from those of Leiop. Grim., but also it is not very clear 
how ROULE deduces from this that the polyps of Leiop. Grim, are less crowded; in my opinion the opposite 
is sooner right. 1 he fact that Leiop. Grim, h^s smaller polyps is no great objection, as in this regard 
we can make use of Leiop. lenta as a transition. Besides the dimensions of the polyps depend for so great 
a part from the preservation that SCHULTZE very rightly will use the diverging types of polyps of var. a, 
and /3 of Antipathes furcata Gray only as a difference between varieties but will not give them a specific 
value. — In this manner only very slight differences remain between Leiop. Grim, and Leiop. glaberr., so 
that I cannot hesitate to join both species into one. 
Finally Leiop. expansa Johnson; this colony is densely branched in a single plane or in parallel 
planes, therefore ditto as Leiop. Grim., while the stem and the branches are elliptical in section, therefore 
ditto as Leiop. glaberr. The branches are curved in irregular zigzags, as in Leiop. glaberr. and Leiop. Grim., 
and alternate to the light and to the left, as the larger branches of Leiop. Grim. The angle between 
bianch and stem etc. is almost 90 , as in the other species; the ultimate branchlets are hairlike (cf. 
‘•slender as horsehair in Leiop. lenta). The spines are shaped as in other species, small, upright, conical to 
subtriangular. The polyps are light-red, while the polyps of VON Koch’s Antipathes glaberr. are orange 
or flesh-coloured to brownish red, in Leiop. Grim, rather clear yellow-red and in Johnson’s specimen of 
Leiop. glabei 1. waim-brown. d he branches do not show fusions, like Leiop. glaberr. (one specimen of 
Leiop. Grim, has two fused branches). Roule remarks (11; p. 75) that Johnson’s description of Leiop. 
exp. is too vague to identify it with Leiop. Grim, although he expects that through a better description 
ot the polyps various characteristics of the colony of Leiop. exp. might have permitted Roule to identify 
Leiop. Grim, with Johnson’s species. He is further of opinion that Johnson’s description makes it diffi¬ 
cult to decide whether Leiop. exp. is a new species or appertains to the cycle of forms of Leiop. glaberr. 
and Leiop. Grim. — The colony, wdiich JOHNSON figures, is very much like the beautiful figure which 
Roule gives of his colonies. — It seems to me that there is no objection to the joining of all reviewed 
species into one, which must be called Euantipathes glaberrima Esper (emend.), with the following diagnosis: 
Colony: Curved in zigzags, irregularly and densely branched; axis often ellip¬ 
tical in section; black, polished on the older parts; branches at right angles, in a 
plane or in all directions; distance between the branches 2 cm. at the utmost; 
length of the branches 3 cm. at the utmost. 
SPINES: Only on the younger parts of the colony; triangular, at right angles 
v. ith the axis, in four longitudinal rows; 40—75 pi long; mutual distance 400 — 800 pi. 
Pol\PS : Domeshaped oral cone with round or sagittally elongated, slit-like 
mouth; sagittal tentacles 0.8— 1.5 mm., lateral ones sub-equal 0.5 — 1 mm; sagittal 
tentacles inserted at a lower level and horizontally projecting; lateral ones ver¬ 
tical 01 inclined towards the oral one. Colour: yellow-red to warm-brown. 
On comparing this diagnosis with that of Euantipathes dichotoma and the data in the tabel of this 
species, it appears that there -is a great likeness between both species, so that they are to be considered 
as nearly related to each other. There is hardly any characteristic of Euantip. glaberr. which is not 
present in Enantip. dichot., except the extreme scarcity of spines on any but the youngest parts. Even 
the typical curve of the branch in an opposite direction to that of the branch of higher order, which 
R-jULE mentions for Leiopathes Grimaldii, is not absent in Euantipathes dichotoma (cf. tabel: I. station 7). 
