not for Palm, anguinus — The spines, figured by Brook, show that the type of spines of the 
species, described by him, are also blunt conical or cylindrical, although it is not well possible 
to give a decision about their surface. I he number of longitudinal rows (± 9) agrees rather 
well with the Siboga-specimens, while I estimate their length, which is unequal on opposite sides 
of the axis, at 300 and 125 p„, with a mutual distance of 800 p. All these data agree very well 
with the tabel on p. 165. Brook’s Cirr . ? diversa may be joined with Eucirripathes spiralis , in 
view of specimen V of the Siboga-material. 
Stichopathes ? lutkeni Brook, the characteristics of which are given in the same tabel, 
may be, in my opinion, joined with Encirr. spiralis. The number of longitudinal rows of spines, 
the shape and the length of the spines, their mutual distance, the shape of the colony, agree 
with the corresponding data of the Eucirr. specimens. As to the shape of the spines Brook’s 
figs. 28 and 28^ on his PI. XII may be compared with my figs. 216 and 225. Brook himself 
mentions a “general resemblance to Stichopathes filiformis\ but he says that in subspiral 
growth it is “intermediate between Stich. Jiliformis and the truly spiral species such as Stich. 
pourtalesi Br. and Cirr. spiralis (Linn.)”. — So Brook has also thought about a comparison 
of the latter species with Stich. ? lutkeni but the spines, which are entirely covered with fine 
papillae have induced him to make a new species. But when we frequently find in the Siboga- 
specimens oi Eucirr. spiralis spines with a rough apex, and also spines which are entirely 
granulated, the obstacle to unite Eucirr. spiralis with Stich. lutkeni is abolished. 
Stichopathes (?) euoplos Sch. may also be mentioned among the species, which in many, 
but not all points, are very like Eucirr. spiralis. The polyps are entirely unknown and only on 
zoogeographical grounds, this single specimen is joined with the genus Stichopathes. The only 
specimen is a fragment of a colony; its characters are given in the tabel; the number of 
longitudinal rows is much less (3-—4), but the length of the spines is equalled by specimens I 
and III, and the same holds good for the mutual distance of the spines; the colony is curved, 
without an indication of a spiral; the shape of the spine, which is the principal character of 
Stich.} euoplos , is without doubt very remarkable, but this type is also present in the Siboga- 
specimens; cf. for instance Schultze’s PI. XIII, fig. 7 with my figs. 219, 223, 224, 225, 240, 
241. — Schultze remarks besides: “zuweilen haben die Dornen die Gestalt breiter Klotze, 
deren freies Ende sich in 2 oder 3 Kegelspitzen spaltet, offenbar Stadien einer Dornvermehrung 
wahrend der Stamm in die Dicke wachst”; this type is also present in my specimens e. g. 
figs. 223, 240, 241 d. The spines being of equal length on every side of the axis with Stich. 
euoplos Sch. may be explained through the non-spiral-shape of the axis, for especially on a spiral 
stem this different length of the spines may be found; usually the longest spines are inserted 
on the convex side oi the coils. Beside the non-spiral axis, which may be partly explained by 
the specimen lacking the natural top, which could have been a spiral while the lower parts of 
the colony were only sinuous, the principal difference remains the small number of longitudinal 
rows of spines. But in the same manner as in Eucirripathes Rumphii v. Pesch a variety is formed 
with double the number of longitudinal rows (var. polysticha), we could join Stichopathes} euoplos 
Sch. with Eucirripathes spiralis as a variety with only half the number of longitudinal rows : 
var. ohgosticha. — Stichopathes contorta T. & S. is in the shape of its colony very much like the 
