8 i 
Fig. 64. EuaTitipath.es longibrachiata n. n. 
Polyps; 15 X- 
Fig. 65. Euantipathes longibrachiata 
n. n. Polyp; 15 X- 
over the lateral ones; the former are 920 ij. long, the latter 650 a. Usually the tentacles are 
not lying against the colony-axis, but stand out free from the axis; sometimes they are pressed 
against the oral cone, covering it. On other parts of the 
colony they are directed distally, especially in fig. 64, where 
the proximal pair of lateral tentacles, which is everywhere 
predominant over the distal pair, lie around the oral cone, 
while the distal lateral tentacles are pressed together. The 
transversal limiting groove and the longitudinal groove on 
the back of the axis are clearly visible. Young polyps alternate irregularly with the adult polyps. 
On the base of the colony the polyps are larger (fig. 65) and more crowded; the base 
of the tentacles may be very much swollen, possibly through the 
presence of ova, which is not evident in the polyps through which 
sections were made, and which were derived from the top-part 
of the colony; perhaps the top and the base of the colony are 
not filled with ova at the same time. The rest of the tentacle 
is cylindrical, so that there is a rather swift transition from the 
swollen base towards the higher part (fig. 65). Remarkable in 
this species is that between the fragments is found an unbranched 
“colony”, 90 cm. long, irregularly sinuous with parts of spiral 
convolutions, thin and very slender; the basal diameter ot 350 ij. increases to 1050 u. on a 
height of 10 cm.; over a long distance this diameter remains subequal, to diminish afterwards 
towards the very slender, snapped-off top (300 ij. in diameter). The character of the spines is 
in every respect the same as in the fragment described above (fig. 63 b) so that there is no 
doubt about the fact that we have got here a snapped-off branch of a branched colony, or 
at the utmost a still unbranched young specimen of a branched species. But I intend to show 
that, being in the possession of this fragment only, I would not have hesitated, considering 
the great length, to look upon it as a Stichopathes , which, in view of the typical increase in 
diameter found in several other Stichopathes- species (e. g. Stick, vanabilis) would have been 
included in one of the Stichopathes- species; so the difficulty of the Indivisae-Ramosae- 
division is apparent. — d his makes it possible to identify the Siboga-specimens with Stichopathes 
japonica Silberfeld. This author describes some fragments from the Enoura-bay, 1 mm. in 
diameter, and “bei dem spiraliges Wachstum angedeutet ist”. The length of the spines (142 a), 
their mutual distance of more than 600 ij. (deduced by me from the descriptions), the shape of the 
spines, which is, according to the description, very like fig. 63 <2, the 6—7 alternating longitudinal 
rows, which are spirally wound round the axis, are all of them points ot conformity. The form 
of the polyps is very like that of the Siboga-specimens (cf. Silberfeld’s fig. 2 on 21 p. 17 with 
my fig. 65) but that the dimensions are somewhat larger. Besides the mesogloea of the Siboga- 
specimens is also a very thick layer with very fine transverse fibres, just as is described by 
Silberfeld for Stick, japonica (p. 17)- Without any doubt Silberfeld was in the condition 
which I supposed when discussing the 90 cm. long fragment, viz. that he was in the 
possession of unbranched branches of a branched colony only, which gave the impression of 
SIF.OGA.-EXPEDITIE XVII. 
