Fig. 112. Stichopathes gracilis (Gray) em. Polyps 
loosened from the axis; 7.6 X- 
tacular distance of 2.5 mm. Young polyps are distributed in an irregular manner between the 
adult ones. The sagittal tentacles are inserted at a slightly lower level than the lateral ones; 
the proximal pair of the latter tentacles is more heavily 
built than the distal pair but not to such a degree 
as with the first specimen. The distal pair is not 
at right angles with the axis, but curved just like 
the proximal pair, and all the tentacles are somewhat 
crosswrinkled. The sagittal tentacles are 1.1 mm. 
long, the proximal lateral ones 1.5 mm., the distal 
lateral ones more than 1.1 mm. The oral cone is well 
developed with a round mouth, the walls of which 
are somewhat crenated. The diameter of the oral cone is 0.5 mm. The cross-groove between 
the polyps is clearly visible. Both specimens principally differ in the shape of the colony, the 
length of the spines, the inclination of the spines, the dimensions of the polyps and the more 
or less predominating of the proximal lateral tentacles. 
The first specimen differs from Brook’s Stichopathes gracilis (Gray) in the spiral stem, 
while the less regular distribution and the inclination of the spines would at an earlier date 
have justified the making of a new species, which now is not well possible. The likeness with 
Schultze s var. a. is very great, especially as far as the polyps are concerned, which show a 
very conspicuous difference between the proximal and the distal pair of lateral tentacles; which, 
besides, have a swollen base of the tentacles with a more cylindrical toppart; which have a 
high oral cone with (in this case) a round mouth. The dimensions and the interpolypar distance 
also agree very well with Schultze’s data, and the same holds good for the dimensions and 
the shape of the spines although the distal side is not at right angles with the axis. The length 
of the spines is somewhat less; the distribution is not so regular. — Young and adult polyps 
do not alternate so regularly; rugae are absent or not visible in the Siboga-specimens and 
present in Schultze’s specimen. — In my opinion all these differences are of no specific value. 
The difference between this specimen and Stichopathes gracilis Gray var. spiralis T. & S. 
lies in the distribution and the shape of the spines. — It differs from Stichopathes echinulata 
Brook in the spiral stem, the irregular distribution of the spines and the more crowded polyps. 
The differences between this specimen and Stichopathes flagellum Roule are much greater in 
my opinion. 
The second specimen differs from Schultze’s var. « in the granulated spines, distributed 
o e irre to ular manner, while the colony is not wound in a spiral. — They agree in 
length of the spines, in the different length of the spines on opposite sides of the axis, in the 
mutual distance of the spines, etc. — It differs from Brook’s Stichopathes gracilis (Gray) in 
having a nearly straight stem and a more irregular distribution of the spines, not always at 
right angles with the axis. Besides the doubled spines have no swollen base; but the doubling 
itself and further characteristics of the spines agree with Brook's description. The many diffe¬ 
rences between both specimens, as well as the differences between the discussed species and 
one of the Siboga-specimens, while these differences are absent in the other specimen, confirm 
