270 Annals of the South African Museum. 



R = 25 mm., was taken in the West Indies. The present individuals 

 are thus much larger and it is noticeable that they have clearly the 

 longest arms; validus is most nearly pentagonal. Probably the rela- 

 tive length of the rays increases with age. Perhaps the number of 

 spines in the furrow series also increases with age, for the South 

 African form has three as against two in the other species. Whether 

 these South African specimens are adult seems doubtful and it is 

 probable that a fully grown specimen would throw much light on 

 the relationships of the genus. If it is true that the supermarginal 

 plates in macrobrachius bear coarse tubercles, the definition of the 

 genus will need some modification. 



HlPPASTERIA PHRYGIANA. 



Asterias phrygiana Parelius, 1768. K. Norske Vid. Sels. Skrift., 



vol. 4, p. 423; pi. 14, figs. 1, 2. 



Hippasteria phrygiana Yerrill, 1885. Rep. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1883, 



p. 542. 



Up to the present time only a single specimen of Hippasteria has 

 been recorded from the southern hemisphere. This was from the 

 Strait of Magellan and was first described by Perrier as H. hyadesi, 

 later as H. magetlanica, and subsequently he used either name, ap- 

 parently interchangeably. Verrill adopted magellanica but hyadesi 

 seems to have priority, if the species has any validity. Perrier him- 

 self says it is very difficult to distinguish from phrygiana, and the 

 differences which he points out are no greater than are to be found 

 between two specimens of phrygiana from the New England coast. 

 He gives no measurements and no figures so that there is no way 

 of determining whether his specimen was adult or young. 



The two specimens in the PIETER FAURE collection only add to 

 the difficulty; they are quite unlike each other and neither is like 

 Perrier's specimen. But I am quite unable to estimate the value of 

 the characters they show, for while they seem like representatives 

 of two different species, they are not so unlike each other as are 

 two specimens of phrygiana from the north-eastern coast of America, 

 which lie before me. All four specimens are young, not half grown, 

 but their peculiarities are not to any great degree due to their 

 youth, I feel quite sure. I am forced to conclude that either all 

 four represent one species, or each one represents a separate species. 

 The former seems to me the more probable alternative and 1 am 

 therefore referring the PIETEU FAURE specimens to phrijyiana. It is 

 quite likely however that a good series of adult Hippasteria from 



