322 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



St. 148. 9. i. 27. Off Cape Saunders, South Georgia, 132-148 m. 3 specimens. 



St. 149. 10. i. 27. Mouth of East Cumberland Bay, South Georgia, 200-234 "''• 7 specimens. 



St. 152. 17. i. 27. 53° 51' S, 36° 18' W, South Georgia, 245 m. i specimen. 



St. 156. 20. i. 27. 53° 51' S, 36° 21' W, South Georgia, 200-236 m. 6 specimens. 



St. 159. 21. i. 27. 53° 52' S, 36° 08' W, South Georgia, 160 m. 4 specimens. 



St. 160. 7. ii. 27. Near Shag Rocks, South Georgia, 177 m. 8 specimens. 



St. 474. 12. xi. 27. I mile W of Shag Rocks, South Georgia, 199 m. Several specimens. 



St. 1562. 7. iv. 35. 46° 53' S, 37° 55' E, off Marion Island, 88-93 m. Several specimens. 



St. 1563. 7. iv. 35. 46° 48' S, 37° 49' E, off Marion Island, 1 13-99 •ri- Several specimens. 



St. 1564. 7. iv. 35. 46° 36' S, 38° 02' E, off Marion Island, 110-113 m. 7 specimens. 



St. WS 25. 17. xii. 26. Undine Harbour (North), South Georgia, 18-27 ^^- ^ specimen. 



St. WS 27. 19. xii. 26. 53° 55' S, 38° 01' W, South Georgia, 107 m. 2 specimens. 



St. WS 33. 21. xii. 26. 54° 59' S, 35° 24' W, South Georgia, 130 m. 8 specimens. 



St. WS 244. 18. vii. 28. 52° 00' S, 62° 40' W, Falkland Islands, 253 m. 3 specimens. 



St. WS 818. 17.1.32. 52° 31' S, 63° 25' W, 272-278 m. 2 specimens (young). 



St. MS 63. 24. ii. 26. East Cumberland Bay, South Georgia, 23 m. i specimen. 



St. MS 71. 9. iii. 26. East Cumberland Bay, South Georgia, 110-60 m. 12 specimens. 



There cannot be the sHghtest doubt that the above specimens are actually identical 

 with Studer's O. Martensi. The original specimens of the latter have been lent me from 

 the Hamburg Museum and I have thus been able to compare them directly with the 

 Discovery specimens ; I find them to agree in every respect — a result which could not 

 have been reached from a comparison with the very poor figures given by Studer. But 

 it appears further that Koehler's Ophioglypha resistens is also identical with O. Martensi, 

 as a comparison of the Discovery specimens with the excellent figures given by Koehler 

 in his two works of 191 1 and 1922 shows beyond doubt. (It is of interest in this con- 

 nection that Koehler identified the specimens from South Georgia of the Swedish 

 South Polar Expedition as O. resistens, op. cit., 1923.) By this I do not mean to say that 

 I feel convinced that all the specimens described by Koehler under the name of O. 

 resistens are really O. Martensi. On the contrary, I feel rather inclined to think that e.g. the 

 specimen figured in pi. vii, fig. 9 {op. cit., 191 1), with the pronounced elevation on the 

 dorsal arm plates is in reality O. gelida ; at least I have not found anything similar in 

 any of the numerous specimens in the present collection. Also the fact that none of the 

 present specimens exceed a size of ca. 10 mm. in diameter of disk, whereas Koehler's 

 largest specimens were 12-14 mm., indicates the probability that diflFerent species have 

 been mixed up with O. resistens. Unfortunately, the original specimens of O. resiste?is 

 are not in the collection of the British Museum, so that I have been unable to make 

 sure whether they all belong to the same species. But the figures 1 1-12, pi. vii {op. cit., 

 191 1) agree completely with O. Martensi, and thus even though there may be more than 

 one species in the original lot of specimens, it is certain that the name resistens becomes 

 a synonym of Martensi. We have here a natural explanation of the fact that the littoral 

 species of South Georgia, O. Martensi, has never been recorded since it was first 

 described ; as a matter of fact, it is one of the commonest Ophiuroids of South Georgia. 

 I think it further beyond doubt that Bell's Ophiozona inermis, from Cape Adare, 

 Victoria Land (' Southern Cross ') is identical with O. Martensi. From Bell's " descrip- 



