OPHIOLEPIDAE 315 



the granules are " tres fins ", and that in the centre of the disk they even encroach upon 

 the surface of the plates themselves, as also upon the surface of the radial shields. But 

 this is exactly what is also found, to a varying degree, in Senouqui; on the ventral inter- 

 radii these granules also occur, sometimes even on the edge of the buccal shields. It 

 seems that the only difference between carinifera and Senouqui is that in the former the 

 granules are somewhat larger — a character of very small value, even if constant. I expect, 

 therefore, that it will ultimately be found that O. Senouqui is identical with O. carinifera, 

 and the name Senouqtii will then have to be dropped as a synonym of carinifera. 



Hertz {op. cit., 1926, p. 25, note) expresses the opinion that the genus Ophiosteira is 

 untenable, and at the same time establishes a new genus Ophiuroglypha, the main 

 characters of which are the reduction of the ambulacral pores and, particularly, the 

 transformation of the second arm spine into a glassy, upturned hook. To this genus, 

 besides the genotype, O. Lymani (Ljungman), she also refers Ophiosteira Senouqui and 

 a number of other species which do not concern us here. Since there are within the 

 species Senouqui all possible transitions between specimens with strongly elevated plates, 

 as in typical Ophiosteira, and with perfectly flat plates, as in O. Lymani, it seems quite 

 natural to regard O. Senouqui and O. Lymani as congeneric. But this does not do away 

 with the genus Ophiosteira. The character of the arm spines seems to constitute a valid 

 distinction between the two genera. In Ophiosteira there are a considerable number of arm 

 spines (five to nine), none of which are transformed into a hook, while in Ophiuroglypha 

 there are only three arm spines, the second of which is, in the distal part of the arms, 

 transformed into an upturned glassy hook. Accordingly, on this basis O. Senouqui 

 (carinifera) is not an Ophiosteira, but an Ophiuroglypha, as maintained by Hertz. 



The matter, however, is not so simple. A. H. Clark, in his paper on Ophiomaria, a 

 fiew genus of Ophiurans from Southern America and the adjacent portion of the Antarctic 

 Continent (Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., vi, 1916, p. 385), refers the species carinifera to his 

 new genus Ophiomaria, with which Koehler agrees (Swedish Antarct. Exped., Asteries 

 et Ophiures, p. 127). Is then Hertz' genus Ophiuroglypha identical with, and only a 

 synonym of, Clark's genus Ophiomaria} And should the present species be named 

 Ophiomaria Se?iouqui (or carinifera)} As yet nobody can tell. The genotype of Ophio- 

 maria is O. tenella, A. H. Clark, from off the coast of Chile. Unfortunately Clark does 

 not give any figures of this species, and in the description he gives no information on 

 the character of the arm spines, whether any of them is transformed into a hook or not. 

 It rather seems that Clark's Ophiomaria is identical with Studer's genus Ophiogona (cf. 

 above, p. 310), and that Hertz' name Ophiuroglypha will be available for O. Lymani and 

 Senouqtd-carinifera ; but for the present we cannot take that for granted. 



In view of the uncertainty in regard to these various points, I prefer for the present 

 to retain the name Ophiosteira Senouqui for the species in question ; but I expect that its 

 correct name will ultimately be found to be Ophiuroglypha carinifera (Koehler). 



It remains to be seen whether the other species referred to Ophiosteira — O. echinulata, 

 Koehler, O. debitor, Koehler, and O. rotundata, Koehler (Austral. Antarct. Exped.), and 

 O. Koehleri, A. H. Clark, from off the coast of Ecuador (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash, xxx. 



