A MONOGRAPH OF THE EXISTING CRINOID8 391 



data as a specimen of Eudiocrinus variegatus (see page 157), a species known only from 

 southern Japan. As a locality Canton means little, since it is merely a center for the 

 assembling and distributing of curios from over a wide area, though of course mainly 

 from the more or less immediate vicinity. The type specimens of Heterometra varii- 

 pinna (see page 278) and of Comantheria grandicalyx (see Part 3, p. 515) were also 

 labeled Canton. 



History. This species was originally described by Dr. P. H. Carpenter hi 1881 

 from a specimen in the Hamburg Museum labeled Canton. In 1883 he published a 

 specific formula for it. In the Challenger report on the comatulids (1888) he inserted 

 it in a key to the six species of "Antedon" that did not seem to fit into any of the groups 

 he had established for 10-armed species. In this key it was paired with (Oligometrides) 

 adeonae, both possessing P! and P a and having the lower pinnules tolerably equal; 

 according to Carpenter laevipinna has 25-35 spiny cirrus segments and a distal inter- 

 syzygial interval of 10 or 11 muscular articulations, while adeonae has 20 cirrus seg- 

 ments without spines and a distal intersyzygial interval of 4 or 5 muscular articulations. 



Hartlaub wrote in 1891 that he had examined two specimens of Antedon milberti 

 from Atj eh (in reality molleri) in the Leyden Museum and also the type specimen of 

 laevipinna in the Hamburg Museum and that laevipinna is identical with milberti. 

 He said further that Carpenter had also realized this and had had the kindness briefly 

 to confirm his conclusion hi a letter. He remarked that the Hamburg specimen, 

 according to Carpenter, is noteworthy in having the segments of the pinnules of the 

 second and third pairs not so thick nor so long as usual. After comparing the type 

 specimen of laevipinna directly with one of the specimens from Atjeh he found that 

 this observation was entirely justified. That Antedon laevipinna proves to be a syn- 

 onym of a previously known species Hartlaub said was the more acceptable since it is 

 among those species that Carpenter was not able to place in any one of his groups. 



I at first accepted Hartlaub's dispostion of laevipinna, but in 1910 I examined the 

 type specimen in the Hamburg Museum and was convinced that it could not be 

 specificaDy identical with the specimen from Atjeh (=motteri), which I saw in the 

 Leyden Museum. In 1912 I published some notes on the type of laevipinna and 

 recorded a second specimen without locality in the Hamburg Museum. At the same 

 tune under the heading Amphimetra sMegelii I redetermined the 10-armed specimen 

 included in the original description of schlegelii hi 1908 as Amphimetra laevipinna. 



In my memoir on the crinoids of the Indian Ocean (1912) Antedon laevipinna is 

 given as a synonym of Amphimetra milberti, following Hartlaub. 



In my memoir on the unstalked crinoids of the Siboga expedition (1918) the 

 synonymy and localities of Amphimetra laevipinna are given, and the species is in- 

 cluded in the key to the species of Amphimetra. 



Dr. Torsten Gisle"n in 1919 discussed the relationship between milberti (tessellata 

 as understood herein) and schlegelii as represented by the 10-armed specimen, arriving 

 at the conclusion that the latter is probably a good species because of the relatively 

 large number of pinnule segments combined with the small arms. 



Family MARIAMETRIDAE A. H. Clark 



Palmala group (part) P. H. CARPENTER, Challenger Reports, Zoology, vol. 26, pt. GO, 1888, p. 223; 

 Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), vol. 21, 1889, p. 305 (species collected at Mergui). HABTLAUB, Nova 



