Fisha — The Asteroid Genus Coronaster. 25 



same as that of briareus and of volsellatus. It seems reasonable, 

 on account of the small size of Perrier's specimens, to consider 

 them immature. They match very well the immature, regener- 

 ating rays of volsellatus, which also have the pedicels biserially 

 arranged, and at a certain stage biserial at the base and tip and 

 quadriserial in the middle portion. 



Coronaster volsellatus has one adambulacral spine, the other 

 species generally two. In C. parfaiti there are three spines on 

 the first five plates, and two on the others. C. antonii has the 

 spines "solitary on the majority of the plates, but in pairs on 

 certain others among them." I do not think the monacanthid 

 condition of volsellatus of sufficient importance to cause a generic 

 separation. The new species, Coronaster halicepus, is diplacan- 

 thid and is evidently a close relative of volsellatus. 



Coronaster is therefore represented in the East Indies by two 

 species, and in the Atlantic by five nominal forms. 



The family affiliations of Coronaster are not easy to determine, 

 its lineage being somewhat involved. The tendency to crowding 

 in the arrangement of pedicels partakes of the Asteriidae, while 

 its mouth plates are quite as " brisingoid " as those of Odinia, 

 and perhaps more so than the oral angles of Labidiaster, two 

 groups placed in the Brisingidre. Its skeleton is more like that 

 of a simplified Pedicellaster than like that of Asterias, or allies. 

 Parenthetically, the mouth plates of Pedicellaster are more 

 prominently " adambulacral " than those of any genus of the 

 Asteriidse, even of Coscinasterias, and are nearly or quite as 

 prominent, relatively, as the oral angles in Brisinga. In Pedi- 

 cellaster and Coronaster the ambulacral plates are more " brisin- 

 goid," uncrowded, and the pedicel pores are in two series, even 

 if later the feet themselves lie in four ranks. In very large 

 specimens of Coronaster, the pedicel pores form two slightly zig- 

 zag rows, much less pronounced than in small specimens of 

 Coscinasterias (in the broader sense), and the ambulacralia are 

 less crowded. My own feeling is that until we arrive at a more 

 satisfactory basis for the subdivision of the Asteriidae than is 

 now current, it will be much better to leave Coronaster in the 

 Pedicellasteridse, rather than to relegate it to the Asteriidse, 

 even though one of its species has long occupied an undisputed 

 corner in that over-burdened family. 



