MONOGRAPH OF JAPAÎvîESE OPHIUROIDEA. 165 



fication is very superficial, being based upon characters of merely 

 secondary importance, as may be seen at once on looking over the 

 whole series of this subfamily. The creation of Hemilepis and 

 Opliiopellis by Ljungman and of Opliionephthys by Lütken ; the 

 referring of those species which I now place in AmjiJiiadis, to 

 Amphiura by Lyman ; the referring of those genera which I now 

 place in the Ophiochitonidœ, to the Amplnuridœ by many authors ; 

 the referring of a genuine Amphiura to HemiplioJis by Duncan, 

 etc. are, in my opinion, some of the more notable errors which 

 have arisen from this superficial classification. 



Vekeill has divided Amphiura and Ophiocnida in a wide sense 

 respectively into five and three distinct genera by the character 

 of the oral papilla?. I am obliged to adopt his subdivisions as a 

 principle, because I believe that, it is scarcely possible otherwise 

 to elucidate the interrelationships of the genera of the Amphiurince. 

 We see that, in almost all the genera of the present subfamily, 

 the oral papilla? are quite similar in form and arrangement to 

 those of any one of Veeeill's subdivisions of Amphiura in a wide 

 sense. Thus, Ophionephthys, Ophionema, Paramphiura, Ophiocentrus, 

 and Veeeill's Amphiocnida correspond in the character mentioned 

 to Amphiura in A^eeeill's sense ; Ophiophragums, as well as Ophio- 

 cnida in Veeeill's sense, to Veeeill's Amphiodia ; Ophiostigma to 

 Amphipholis in Veeeill's sense ; and Veeeili/s Amphilimna to 

 Veeeill's Amphioplus. I look upon these relations to be of 

 primary importance, being evidently more fundamental than the 

 characters of the disk coverings. 



Granting this, I believe there are two ways open for us ; one 

 would be to unite most genera of the present subfamily into a 

 single genus, and the other to subdivide Amphiura and Ophiocnida 

 in a wide sense into many genera. The first way appears to me 



