152 
and coenenchyma ditto as in the other specimens, shape of the colony also, but the undulations 
in the toppart of the colony are small and scanty. No swellings of the axis; no branches. 
The spines of all the described specimens are very numerous; they are at right angles 
with the axis as in Eucirripathes propinqua (Brook), or slightly distally inclined as in Eucirr i- 
pathes anguina (Dana), or the distal side is at least more upright than the proximal side. On 
the thinner parts ot the axis there are at least 12 longitudinal rows, which may be more or 
less regular. Sometimes the distribution is entirely irregular. Often the spines are of a very unequal 
length on opposite sides of the axis. I heir shape is blunt and conical when they are at right 
angles with the axis, but more acute when they are distally inclined; it is very like the figures, 
given by Brook for Eucirripathes anguina and propinqua. 
On comparing all the described specimens, there is left no doubt about their appertaining to 
Eucirripathes anguina , considering the typical shape of the axis, which is always irregularly 
twisted snake-like, without spiral coils, except for some spiral-like parts of spec. V. The shape of 
the spines also agrees very well with those of Eucirr. anguina and propinqua. The characteristic 
shape of the colony-top is very remarkable, at first increasing in diameter, afterwards tapering in a 
conical shape. — 1 he branches, which are certainly only very short, but which often or always 
have the typical shape of the colony-top, are too long to be considered as mere swellings of 
the axis, while, on the other hand, their influence on the shape of the colony is not great 
enough to place this species among the branched genera. The character of Eucirripathes , viz. the 
multiserial arrangement of the polyps etc., is too obvious to be ignored. — As to the polyps, 
their dimensions are somewhat unlike those of Eucirripathes propinqua (Brook), while the 
number of polyps to 1 cm. of the axis is considerably greater than according to Brook. But 
the position of the tentacles against the oral cone, and the entire habitus of the polyps is very 
like those figured by Brook. — The diagnosis should be: 
Colony : unbranched, sometimes bearing very short branches; changing 
diameter; increasing diameter at the top which ends conical and blunt; 
irregularly sinuous and twisted; rarely part of a steep spiral is indicated. 
Spines: blunt, conical, at right angles with the axis or, with the smaller 
ones, more acute and distally inclined; rough surface; 12 —14 longitudinal 
rows; average length 180 p ; mutual distance is about 450 p. 
Polyps: numerous, conspicuous, in irregular longitudinal rows on every 
side of the axis, except for a narrow streak on one side; interpolypar distance 
max. 2 mm.; sagittal tentacles 2.3 mm., lateral ones 1.7 mm., upright on the 
axis or in a distally directed group; high oral cone with basal constriction; 
sagittally elongated mouth; numerous cross-grooves between the polyps. 
In his Herbarium Amboinense Rumphius described some Eucirripathes- specimens, which 
are called “ lali-aros and '‘Rottang laut and which Rumphius named A.ccarbarium unicaule 
or Palmijuncus marinus ; he made a distinction between three species: Palm, vulgaris , Palm, 
striatus and Palm, anguims. Brook has placed the latter one, in imitation of Dana, among Eucirr. 
anguina (Danaj, to which it does not belong at all, since the axis is wound in a spiral with 
small diameters of the coils, as is not only described by Rumphius, but also very clearly figured 
