AMPIIIURIDAE 2S9 



It would seem more correct to refer this species to the genus Amphiodia than to 

 Amphiopliis as Koehler has done ; as a matter of fact the mouth papillae are in accordance 

 with the Ampliiodia type (as defined by Matsumoto, Monogr. Japanese Ophiuroids, 

 p. 166), not with the Amphioplus type (Fig. 23). To Amphiactis, to which genus it is 

 referred by Hertz, it does not seem to me to have any near affinity. 



This species is viviparous and hermaphrodite. The gonads themselves are not her- 

 maphrodite, but either of pure female or of pure male character ; they are found only at 

 the interradial side of the genital slits (judging from the two specimens opened). It 

 appears that the development is intra-ovarial. There are only one or two eggs (embryos) 

 at a time in each ovary. 



There cannot be the slightest doubt that Studer's Ophioceramis antarctica is identical 

 with his Amphiura affinis. From an inspection of the very poor figures of the two 

 "species" given by Studer (op. cit.) it is at once evident that they must be very closely 

 allied, in spite of the fact that Studer referred them to two difli'erent genera and families. 

 Suspecting an error here on the part of Studer I applied to my friend Dr A. Panning of 

 the Hamburg Museum for the loan of the type of this Ophioceramis antarctica, which he 

 very kindly sent me. My suspicion proved well founded. Not a single character can I 

 find by which to distinguish it from A. affinis. The specimen is in rather poor condition, 

 but it is still possible to make out the characters of the species, though the genital slits 

 are not yet distinct (the specimen is a young one, 3 mm. diameter of disk). From the 

 figure given by Studer (fig. 7 a) it would appear that the radial shields are quite indis- 

 tinguishable, in contradistinction to A. affinis, the figure of which (fig. 9 a) shows the 

 radial shields quite distinctly. But the former figure is incorrect, the radial shields are 

 exactly of the same shape and size as in A. affinis of corresponding size. Further, the 

 tentacle scales would seem to afford an important difference, Ophioceramis antarctica 

 being stated to have two tentacle scales, "sehr kurz, flach", A. affinis to have only one 

 small tentacle scale. In reality Ophioceramis antarctica has only one tentacle scale, 

 exactly as in ^. affinis, and both of Studer's figures, 7 h and 9 b, show it incorrectly ; it is 

 as drawn here in Fig. 23. 



The identity of Studer's Ophioceramis antarctica and Amphiura affinis being thus a 

 fact, the question is which name has to be used for the species. In Studer's paper 

 Ophioceramis antarctica comes first; but in 1867 Ljungman described an Ophiophragnms 

 antarcticus, which H. L. Clark (Cat. Recent Ophiurans, p. 249) has referred to the 

 genus Amphiodia. The identity of Ljungman's Ophiophragmus antarcticus with Am- 

 phiodia chilensis (Miiller and Troschel) does not make the species name antarctica 

 available for the present species, unless the species chilensis is referred to the genus 

 Ophiophragmus, which is, however, disputable. I think it therefore the safest course to 

 let the present species keep the name affinis, which will be available no matter to which 

 genus, Amphiodia or Amphioplus, the species is referred. 



It is satisfactory that the confusion caused by this Ophioceramis antarctica has been 

 cleared up, a species the more mysterious since the genus Ophioceramis is otherwise not 

 known outside the tropical region. 



