IO' 
polyps are entirely absent. Along the stein of the entire fragment a wormtube is visible. 
All the branches are simple; they are sub-equal in length, viz. 8 mm. (in one half of the 
colony the branches are very much damaged). All the branches are straight and inserted 
at right angles with the axis, directed towards all sides, but a distribution in six lono-i- 
tudinal rows is visible. The wormtube is of the same pattern as in the other described 
Parantipathes- species, and the stem is included in its wall. The diameter of the tube is 
2.5 mm.; Annelids are absent. 
The spines (fig. 101) on the tops of the branches are arranged in 4 longitudinal rows, 
alternating in a slanting quincunx. The length of the spines is 
65 p. ; their mutual distance is 210 p.; the spines are smooth, distally 
inclined and slightly curved. On the stem and the wall of the 
wormtube the spines are at right angles with the axis, while their 
distribution is not so regular. Their mutual distance is 150 p. or 
less; often there are 4(—5) longitudinal rows visible with quincunxial alternation, especially on 
the stem; length : 60 p.. 
Although the number of branches in a longitudinal row is greater than in Brook’s 
description, the arrangement of the branches, the shape and distribution of the spines are 
concordant with Brook’s description and the figures of Lacaze Duthiers. The more crowded 
branches in the longitudinal rows are no great objection to the identification with Brook’s species 
for the specimen, described by J. A. Thomson from the Faeroes, has more than 20 branches 
tig. 101. Parantipathes larix (Esper) 
Brook. Spines on the top-part of a 
branch; 52 X- 
in a vertical row, on a space of 3 cm., while Brook gives this number as 11 ; the Siboga- 
specimen keeps the middle between both. Besides Thomson’s specimen has also the not entirely 
regular arrangement in six longitudinal rows, which, in the Sibog'a-specimen, is no objection to 
combine it with Brook’s species, where this arrangement is entirely regular. Thomson’s remark about 
the flexibility of the pinnulae is here also true. Although in Thomson’s specimen, as well as in 
the Siboga-specimens, the polyps are unknown, I have no doubt as to the identity, mentioned 
above, also of Thomson’s specimen. The diagnosis should be emendated as follows: 
Colony : Stem may be branched. Stem or branches bear un branched 
pinnulae, in bottle-brush-arrangement, principally in 6 vertical rows with 
slight deviations. Number of pinnulae in a row: 4 — 7 on 1 cm. Pinnulae 
straight, but flexible, at right angles with the stem. 
Spines: Triangular on the older parts of the colony, distally inclined 
on the pinnulae. Smooth, acute; 3 — 4 longitudinal rows; length 60 — 90 p. ; 
mutual distance 150 — 210 p. (Brook: 300 p. ; Thomson: 500 — 750 p„). 
P olyps : Tentacles slender and elongated, arranged in two rows; 
transversal poly par axis 3 — 4 X sagittal axis; mouth somewhat sagit- 
tally elongated on a round oral cone. Interpolypar distance more than 
2 mm. 
Former habitat. Esper, Lacaze Duthiers, Mediterranean; Brook, Bay of Naples, 
54 fm.; Milne Edwards, Duchassaing, Martinique; Roule, Bay of Gascony, 1220 M.; Hickson, 
station 13 (48° 7'N., 8° 13'W. 412 fm.); Thomson, Faeroes. 
