A MONOGRAPH OF THE EXISTING CRINOIDS 465 



In my report on the crinoids collected by the Hamburg southwest Australian 

 expedition which appeared in 1911 I recorded and gave notes upon a specimen from 

 Port Hedland and another from Shark Bay, and at the same time described 3 small 

 individuals from Port Hedland under the name of Comaster typica which are in reality 

 this form. In my monograph on the crinoids of Australia which was published in 

 the same year I gave an annotated synonymy, with the differential characters, and a 

 summary of the known records. Two previously unnoticed specimens from Torres 

 Strait in the United States National Museum and one from Mermaid which had 

 been collected by the Gazelle were mentioned. 



In a memoir on the crinoids of the Hamburg Museum published in 1912 a speci- 

 men from the Abrolhos Islands and 2 from Broome were recorded and their main 

 characters were given. The 3 small individuals which had been described under 

 the name of Comaster typica in 1911 were here redetermined as C. belli. A discussion 

 of the characteristic features of this species was included. 



In my monograph on the crinoids of the Indian Ocean published in 1912 there 

 was given a summary of the known information concerning this form. 



In my account of the crinoids of the Berlin Museum published in 1912 fragments 

 of a specimen are recorded from Mermaid, and in a supplement to my memoir (1911) 

 on the crinoids collected by the Hamburg southwest Australia expedition published 

 in 1913 the 3 small specimens originally described under the name of Comaster typica 

 are redetermined as C. belli. 



The 2 specimens which were recorded by Dr. H. L. Clark as Comanthus schlegelii 

 from Mer proved on reexamination to belong to this species. 



In 1915 I discussed the range of this species in Australia, and in 1918 in my 

 report on the unstalked crinoids of the Siboga expedition I inserted this form in a key 

 to the species of Comaster. 



In 1921 Dr. H. L. Clark published a detailed account of its distribution and 

 occurrence. He remarked that he did not meet with the species; but the 2 specimens 

 from the deeper water outside the northwestern reef at Mer which he mentions under 

 Comanthus schlegelii are in reality this form. 



The generic allocation of this species has been unusually varied. Up to 1908 it 

 was always referred to Actinometra. In that year I assigned it first to Comaster and 

 then to Phanogenia, both of these generic names being used in a very broad sense. 

 In 1909, on the establishment of the genus Comanthus, I placed it in this genus. In 

 1911 I referred it to Comanthina, which I regarded as a subgenus of Comanthus, and it 

 is found so allocated in the report on the crinoids of the Hamburg southwest Australia 

 expedition, the monograph of the crinoids of Australia, the monograph of the crinoids 

 of the Indian Ocean, and in the report upon the crinoids of the Berlin Museum. In 

 the introduction to the monograph on the crinoids of Australia it is in one place 

 through an oversight assigned to Comantheria, though also on the same page, as 

 well as elsewhere, to Comanthina. In the report on the crinoids of the Hamburg 

 Museum it is placed in Comaster, restricted, and the reasons for this are given. Since 

 that time (1912) it has remained in Comaster. But I am now convinced that it should 

 be placed in Comanthina. 



