224 BULLETIN 82, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



Antedon bipartipinna and A. acuticirra as very variable, but believed it to differ 

 constantly from the Amboina form in the greater number of arms. He said that the 

 principal reason that led him to consider the Chinese and Amboina forms as identical 

 was the agreement in the form of the cirri, arms, brachials, and pinnules. He regarded 

 as also characteristic the synarthrial tubercules, the shortness of the first syzygial 

 pair, the uneven dorsal surface of the first 7 or 8 brachials, and the carination of the 

 pinnules in the proximal portion of the arms. He wrote that if one places weight on 

 these apparently constant characters, and if one also takes into consideration the 

 obvious inclination of A. ludovici toward variation, it may well be asked whether A. 

 bipartipinna, coming also from Hongkong, is not really the same species. 



In 1895 Prof. Rene Koehler recorded this species from Amboina, and in 1898 

 Prof. Ludwig Doderlein again recorded specimens from Amboina. Koehler's record 

 was based on specimens of Heterometra amboinae (see page 300). and it is probable that 

 Doderlein's record was based on the same species. 



In 1907 I referred ludovici, considered as including acuhcirra, australis, and 

 bipartipinna, to the new genus Himerometra. In 1909 on the establishment of the 

 new genus Craspedometra I listed as referable to this genus Craspedometra acuticirra, 

 C. australis, C. bipartipinna, and C. ludovici. 



Thanks to the kindness of Dr. Th. Mortensen I had been able to examine the 

 specimen supposedly from Sydney in the Copenhagen Musem that bore Liitken's 

 manuscript name Antedon australis. Later in 1909 I published a description of this 

 specimen, referring it to Craspedometra acuticirra. At the same time I recorded and 

 gave notes upon a specimen from Singapore. I remarked that this specimen is so 

 different from the one from Sydney that I at first considered it as a representative of a 

 different species, which was the reason for describing it so minutely. Subsequently I 

 had had the opportunity of studying the series of specimens belonging to the Indian 

 Museum at Calcutta, and my examination of these specimens proved to my satisfac- 

 tion that the example from Sydney and the one from Singapore, different in general 

 appearance as they are, really belong to the same specific type. 



In 1911 I recorded another specimen from Singapore that I had seen in the Paris 

 Museum in 1910, and in 1912 I gave notes upon the type specimens of Antedon acuti- 

 cirra, A. ludovici, and A. bipartipinna, which I had examined at the Hamburg Museum. 

 All three forms, together with A. australis, I referred to the same species, which I 

 called Craspedometra acuticirra. 



In my monograph on the crinoids of the Indian Ocean, which was published in 

 1912, 1 included Antedon ludovici, A. australis, and A. bipartipinna in the synonymy of 

 Craspedometra acuticirra, and recorded three specimens, one from the Andaman 

 Islands, one from the Mergui Archipelago, and one from the Burmese coast, giving 

 notes on all three. 



In 1932 I recorded from the collection of the Indian Museum a broken specimen 

 from Trotter Island, and in 1933 I recorded and gave notes upon 55 specimens from 

 three localities off the coast of Sumatra in the collection of the Buitenzorg Museum 

 in Java. 



Dr. Th. Mortensen in 1934 listed this species as one of the crinoids known from 

 Hongkong. 



