NO. 3 DEICHMANN : HOLOTHURIOIDEA ; PART I, DENDROCHIROTA 121 



Thyone peruana Selenka, 1867, p. 354. — Lampert, 1885, p. 160. — Sem- 

 per, 1868, p. 242.— Theel, 1886, p. 140.— Deichmann, 1936, p. 

 65 (passim). 



Nee Jnaperus caroliniis Troschel, 1846, p. 62, nee Thyone tenella Selen- 

 ka, 1867, p. 354, pi. 20, figs. 113-114. Referred to Thyone peru- 

 ana by Selenka, 1868, p. 118 (both are synonyms of Thyone bri- 

 ar eus and both came from the Atlantic coasts of North America). 



Diagnosis. — No diagnosis can be given, as Lesson and Troschel pos- 

 sibly had two different species before them. 



Type. — Probably lost, or in Paris. 



Type locality. — Payta, Peru. 



Remarks. — Lesson's description and figure refer to an exceptionally 

 large form, 6 inches long, with 8 bushy tentacles, numerous feet, and 

 soft skin. The color of the animal was deep purplish. 



Troschel's numerous specimens in Berlin, likewise from Peru, refer 

 apparently to a typical Thyone. They seem to resemble the West In- 

 dian Thyone briareus Lesueur and have similar short posterior pro- 

 longations on the radials and distinct anal teeth ; the 2 ventral tentacles 

 are smaller (according to Troschel they were probably overlooked by 

 Lesson, since he figured only 8). The calcareous spicules were not 

 studied ; Troschel mentions merely that they were numerous in the stem 

 of the tentacles. The size and color given by Troschel may very likely be 

 quoted directly from Lesson. 



Selenka re-examined Troschel's material and decided that Anaperus 

 carolinus Troschel and his own Thyone tenella from, respectively, Caro- 

 lina and Texas were synonyms of the Peruvian form (both names are 

 synonyms of Thyone briareus Lesueur, the common large Thyone from 

 the eastern coasts of the United States). 



Lampert may possibly have examined some specimens of T. briareus 

 and based his few remarks concerning Thyone peruana on a study of this 

 material but not on the true Peruvian form; J. Miiller discusses (1854, 

 p. 85) the stone canal and figures (p. 9), one from A. peruana, possibly 

 from Troschel's material, but nothing of importance can be gleaned from 

 his drawing. 



Whether Selenka for once was hasty in his identification or whether 

 Troschel's material was mislabeled and actually represented material of 

 Thyone briareus is impossible to decide. If the latter is true, it is obvious 

 that the statements regarding the size and color came from Lesson's de- 



