330 Annals of the South African Museum. 



AlVIPHIPHOLIS SQUAMATA. 



Asterias squamata Delle Chiaje, 1828. Mem. Anim. sans Vert. Napnli, 



vol. 3, p. 74. 



Amphipholis squamata Verrill, 1899. Trans. Conn. Acad., vol. 10, 



p. 312. H. L. Clark, 1904, Bull. U. S. F. C. for 1902, pi. 6, 



figs. 33, 34; pi. 7, Jigs. 43, 44. 



This remarkably cosmopolitan species was first recorded from 

 South Africa by Ljungman in 1871 under the name A. kinbergi. 

 One of Ljungman's types is now in the M. C. Z. collection and is 

 figured in the Mem. M. C. Z., vol. 25, pi. 6, figs. 9, 10. In 1882, 

 Mr. Lyman decided that kinbergi was not distinguishable from sqnam- 

 ata and hence the CHALLENGER specimens from South Africa are 

 listed under the latter name. A specimen in the PIETER FAURE 

 collection is apparently identical with the cotype of kinbergi now 

 before me, but it is clear that to separate it from specimens of 

 squamata from the east coast of the United States requires a most 

 unscientific use of the imagination, and I must therefore agree with 

 Mr. Lyman and call the South African specimens squamata. The 

 PIETER FAURE specimen is quite different from the specimen of 

 A. minor but large series of squamala from other regions show 7 inter- 

 mediate forms and I am not fully satisfied that the two species are 

 distinct. 



S.A.M. no. 301."). False Bay. Littoral. Dr. Purcell coll. 1 spe- 

 cimen ; adult. 



* AMPHIOPLUS GIBBOSUS. 



Ophiophragmus gibbosus Ljungman, 1867. Ofv. Kongl. Vet.-Akad. 



Forh., vol. 23, p. 31(5. 

 Amphioplus gibbosus H. L. Clark, 1915. Mem. M. C. Z., vol. 25, p. 257. 



This species has not been recorded since its original description 

 from a specimen taken near Port Natal. Even its generic position 

 is by no means certain. 



* 



AMPHIOPLUS INTEGER. 



Amphipholis Integra Ljungman, 1867. (Jfv. Kongl. Vet.-Akad. Forh. 



vol. 23, p. 313. 

 Amphiura Integra Koehler, 1904. Mem. Soc. Zool. France, vol. 17, 



p. 65, figs. 16, 17. 

 Amphioplus integer H. L. Clark, 1915. Mem. M. C. Z., vol. 23, p. 258. 



This species, like the preceding, was originally described from a 

 specimen taken near Port Natal. Koehler has given a more detailed 



