ASTEROIDEA 253 



Diplasterias brucei (Koehler) 



Stolasterias brucei Koehler, 1908, p. 569, pi. 5, figs. 46, 47. 



Coscinasterias brucei Koehler, 191 1, p. 30, pi. 5, fig. 5. 



Coscinasterias victoriae Koehler, 191 1, p. 32, pi. 5, figs. 3, 4; 1912, p. 24. 



Pociasterias brucei, 1920, p. 42, pi. 11, figs. 5-7; pi. 13, figs. 1-9; pi. 14, figs. 4, 7-1 1; pi. 15, figs. 4, 5; 



1923, p. 35, pi. 13, figs. I, 2.— Doderlein, 1928, p. 295.— Grieg, 1929, p. 5. 

 Diplasterias brucei Fisher, 1930, p. 231. 



McMurdo Strait, Victoria Land (W.Q. hole 12), 2 young specimens. 



St. 181. Schollaert Channel, Palmer Archipelago, 64° 20' S, 63°oi'W, 160-335 m., ™ud, 2 

 specimens. 



St. 123. Off mouth of Cumberland Bay, South Georgia, 230-250 m., grey mud, 2 specimens 

 (6 rays). 



St. 148. Off Cape Saunders, South Georgia, 132-148 m., grey mud, stones, 3 specimens (6 rays). 



St. 170. Off Cape Bowles, Clarence Island, 342 m., rock, i young specimen (5 rays). 



St. 181. Schollaert Channel, Palmer Archipelago, 64° 20' S, 63°oi'W, 160-335 m., mud, 2 

 specimens. 



St. 366. South of Cook Island, South Sandwich Islands, 77-152 m., 3 specimens (5 rays). 



St. 371. I mile east of Montagu Island, South Sandwich Islands, 99-161 m., i specimen 5-rayed 

 carrying young. 



St. 1941. Leith Harbour, South Georgia, 53-22 m., 3 young (6 rays). 



St. MS 71. East Cumberland Bay, South Georgia, 110-60 m., i specimen (6 rays). 



All the specimens from South Georgia have 6 rays and are therefore not typical 



brucei. Koehler regards this 6-rayed form as a variant of meridmialis and has published 



a figure and notes on a specimen from 250 m., Antarctic Bay, South Georgia (1923, p. 



33, pi. 13, fig. i). It is only necessary to compare this figure with one of brucei on the 



same plate (fig. 2) to see that it resembles brucei much more closely than it does typical 



meridionalis (Koehler, 1917, 1923). In fact two medium-sized specimens (R 78 and 



93 mm.) outdo typical brucei, of about the same size, in the reduction or suppression of 



the dorsolateral spinelets, and the accentuation of the carinal and superomarginal 



spines along with the circumspinal cushions of tissue. These cushions are not necessarily 



larger in (5-rayed) brucei, as Koehler believed, but may be actually smaller than in the 



6-rayed form (e.g. i from St. M 71 as compared to typical brucei, Sts. 366, 371). The only 



difference mentioned by Koehler which seems to hold is the more constant development 



of actinal spines in brucei, these extending farther along ray than in the 6-armed form. 



There are two very large specimens from St. 148 having 6 rays and the general habit of 



brucei. One measures R 160 mm., r 28 mm. ; the other, R 245 mm., r 38 mm. In these, 



well-developed actinal spines extend \ R along ray while in a specimen of brucei from 



St. 366 (R about 90 mm.) they extend rather more than | R. (In an equal-sized 



6-rayed specimen they extend about i R but the spines are smaller.) But D. meridionalis 



differs from these in lacking actinal spines altogether and in having reduced hidden, 



actinal plates. 



No typical 5-rayed brucei has yet been taken near South Georgia. As the matter now 

 stands these 6-rayed specimens look exactly like typical brucei except for the number of 

 rays and a poorer development of actinal spines. To add somewhat to the confusion a 



