148 
form the species C. spiralis , since the polyps are only known in a very desultory manner, 
with one single exception all of them only in a dried condition and in obsolete figures, and 
the shape of the colony in itself is not constant enough to be made use off, without further 
characteristics being known as is demonstrated by the Siboga-material. 
Among the other, dubious, Cirripathes- species Cirr.} flagellum Brook differs again only 
in characters of the spines from Cirr. anguma Dana and Cirr. propinqua Brook, while 
Cirr.'. diversa Brook differs also in spine-characters from Cirr. spiralis (Linn.) Blainv. We 
conclude from Forster-Cooper s publication that the difference between Cirr. spiralis (Linn.) 
Blainv. and Cirr. diversa Br. is not very great. I he latter species has also smaller spines 
distributed between the larger spines. I he number of longitudinal rows of spines is according 
to Cooper s figure less than according to his description and is better in accordance with the 
tabels, made by me for Cirr. spiralis • I refer to my discussion of the Siboga-material of this 
species for its further identification. — Only Cirr. paucispina is not immediately to be identified 
with one of the discussed species, although it may be remarked that the colour of the axis 
gives no absolute certainty, especially since the polyps are entirely unknown. — Thomson’s 
and Simpsons Cirr. r sp. n.? is too incompletely figured and described as to permit a positive 
conclusion. 
Cirr. gar diner 1 F. C. is not unlike Cirr. anguina Dana in general appearance, according 
to this author. The polyps are a good deal larger, but not if we compare the Siboga-material 
with them, and the spines are of a slightly different shape, but also this difference is of no 
great value. 1 he colour is also different, but this is unimportant, especially in spirit-specimens, 
and Forster-Cooper rightly remarks that this is a point of very doubtful specific value. After 
all the difference is in secondary spines especially (which term is not very suitable, since there 
is no question about the smaller spines being “secondary”), present in Cirr. gardineri and 
absent in Cirr. anguina Dana. In the description of Cirr. gardineri we find that there are 
a few exceedingly small triangular secondary spines between the larger ones,- I do not think 
it desirable, with so very great a likeness in all possible qualities (cf. Forster-Cooper’s figures 
ol the polyps with the polyps figured by me in the description of the Siboga-specimens of Cirr. 
anguina Dana) to keep both species apart, mainly basing on a few small spines, which, as is 
demonstrated by Cirr. spiralis Blainv. and Cirr. diversa Br. sometimes may be found between 
the larger spines. In my opinion Cirr. gardineri F.-C. ought to be united with Cirr. anguina 
Dana. I retain the following species: 
1. Eucirripathes anguina (Dana) emend., which contains also: Cirripathes propinqua 
Brook, Cirr. flagellum Brook and Cirr. gardineri Forster-Cooper, and the diagnosis of which 
is, for the present, as follows: 
Colony: straight, or curved, or twisted; subequal diameter or with 
distinct nodes in the axis. No spiral. 
Spines: conical, thick, at right angles with the axis or slightly distally 
inclined; sometimes of unequal length on opposite sides of the axis; 14 — 16 
longitudinal rows. 
