REPORT ON THE ASTEROIDEA. iii 



my opinion, inadequate and artificial ; and I have been led to formulate a classification more 

 in accordance with morphological characters as at present understood. I venture to believe 

 that this will be found more convenient for general workers, as well as more natural. 



In dealing with the synonymy of a species I have in each case given all the different 

 name-combinations under which the form has been recognised and the author by whom 

 each was originated, but I have not given a citation of all subsequent writers by whom 

 the terms have been copied or used. By this means brevity has been gained, without 

 sacrificing anything pertinent to the history of the name. 



In order to add to the completeness of the work, I have given under each genus a 

 notice of all authentic species belonging thereto, and their geographical distribution. I 

 have also added at the end of the Eeport a synoptic list of the known species of recent 

 Asteroidea, with particulars of their geographical and bathyrnetrical distribution, the 

 changes of name to which they have been subjected, and their synonyms, which I hope 

 will increase the utility of the Report. A few species which have been inadvertently 

 omitted in the chorological statement of the genera will be found duly recorded in this 

 list. 137 genera and 810 species are here enumerated. 



The urgent need of a critical examination by one person of the large number of types 

 distributed throughout the various Continental collections has long been felt by every 

 worker at the group, as many of the types in question have been very imperfectly known, 

 and, owing to insufficient description, numberless false determinations and a confusing 

 multiplication of synonymous terms have arisen. To eliminate as far as possible this 

 element of perplexity, I have visited the chief Continental museums and have personally 

 studied the rich collections at Christiania, Stockholm, Lund, Copenhagen, Leyden, Paris, 

 Berlin, Kiel, Hamburg, Leipzig, Breslau, and Vienna. I venture to believe that the 

 labour thus expended will place the list now given on a more reliable basis than was pre- 

 viously possible. 



I desire to acknowledge gratefully the privileges afforded me in this undertaking, and 

 to express my hearty thanks to the Heads of the various universities and museums, who, 

 without exception, placed the collections under their charge unreservedly at my disposal. 

 To the many eminent naturalists who have given me valuable assistance and information 

 I desire to tender my sincere thanks. Some obligations are ackoowdedged in the text, 

 and in addition to those I cannot refrain from naming here the late Prof. M. Esmark and 

 Dr. Robert Collett of Christiania ; Prof. S. Loven of Stockholm ; Dr. Hjalmar Theel of 

 Upsala ; Dr. C. D. E. Roth of Lund ; Prof. J. J. S. Steenstrup and Prof. Chr. F. Lutken 

 of Copenhagen ; the late Prof. H. Schlegel and Dr. F. A. Jentink of Leyden ; Prof. 

 Edmond Perrier and Ms J. Poirier of Paris ; the late Prof. W. Peters, Prof. Ed. von 

 Martens and Dr. F. Hilgendorff of Berlin ; Prof. Karl Mobius of Kiel ; Prof. H. A. 

 Pagenstecher and Dr. G. Pfeffer of Hamburg ; Prof. R. Leuckart and Prof. J. V. Carus of 

 Leipzig ; Prof. Anton Schneider of Breslau ; Dr. F. Steindachner and Dr. Emil von 



