1 77 
Polyps: not uniserial; only on the convex side of the axis; low; round 
or sagittally elongated mouth and ditto low oral cone; tentacles knobshaped, 
max. length 0.3 mm.; interpolypar distance max. 1.7 mm.; coenenchyma very 
thin with clearly visible cross- and longitudinal grooves; 8 — 12 polyps to 
1 cm. of the axis; the spines project through coenenchyma and polyps. 
To his species incertae sedis Brook has added i. a. Antipathes corticata Lamarck 
(= Hyalopathes corticata Milne Edwards) as [Antipathes\ corticata Lamk. This species is only 
very imperfectly described ; the colony is dichotomously branched, in a not very dense way ; 
the axis only shows a slight taper from base to apex. The spines are not described, and 
Brook says: “there seems every probability that the sclerenchyma in spite of its being glossy, 
has the essential Antipatharian characters”. The polyps are arranged in two or three 
irregular rows!, the individuals being distributed at various points around the axis, and 
not in a linear series. Brook says: “I know of no other species approaching it in this respect 
but an examination of the polyps is necessary before its generic position can be definitely 
established. In form and distribution they appear more closely related to 
Cirripathes than to any other genus of which the polyps are known” (spaced 
by me, v. P.). Although the description does not permit a decision, it is highly probable that 
we have another species of Hillopathes viz. Hillopathes corticata (Lamk.) here. The black 
sclerenchyma, as well as the rather sparingly branched colony and the slight tapering of the 
axis are points which both species of this genus have in common, while the not-uniserial 
arrangement of the polyps is an obstacle to the joining of it to Euantipathes. — There goes 
a line from Cirripathes especially Eucirr ipathes (i. a. Encirripathes anguina), via Hillopathes 
ramosa , Hillopathes corticata (Lamk.) to Antipathes , especially Etiantipathes. 
SUPPLEMENT. 
Cirripathes densifiora Silberfeld is omitted in the description of Eucirripathes anguina 
(Dana). Diagnosis as well as description of the former species are not very characteristic; figures 
of spines or polyps are lacking. But on comparing my diagnosis of Eucirr. anguina on p. 152 
with Silberfeld’s description we find the following points which both species have in common: 
1. the colony-axis is sinuous (“gebuchtet”), 2. the spines are at right angles with the axis, 
j. the distance between the spines is very variable, <7. the top of the spines is blunt, 5. some¬ 
times the spines are more acute and slender, 6 . usually the polyps leave a narrow longitudinal 
streak open along the axis, 7. the polyps are arranged in several longitudinal rows, 8 . the 
tentacles are heavily built, 9. the mouth is a sagittally elongated slit. 
The differences are very slight: the spines are 350 p. in length over against an average 
of 180 p. with Eucirr. anguina ; the number of longitudinal rows of spines is 7 over against 
12—14 with the other species. — Perhaps the latter difference can partly be explained through 
Silberfeld’s specimen being possibly of a lesser age. 
SIBOGA-EXPEDITIE XVII. 
23 
