ACTINOrODOrS IlOLOTtirrJOIDEA. 135 



ty of that species witli II. pervica.r. I deem it not unlikely that 

 some of the specimens 1 have placed in //. pervicax might be re- 

 ferable to //. fuscocinerca. It would be helpful if those who have 

 specimens of the latter species would carefull}' re-examine the 

 point in question. The only point in which the two species seem 

 to differ consists in the shape of the buttons, and this can probably 

 be bridged over. 



Bedfokd's statement that //. ar(jus Jaeger is a close ally of 

 the present species, I can not support, as the two species are 

 very clearly distinguishable both in calcareous deposits and in 

 coloration. For details see the description of H. argus in the 

 present memoir. 



LocaliUi : — Red Sea (Semper '(37—8); Ai^sab (Ludwig '87j ; Zanzibar 

 (Selenka '67) ; Bueni (Lampert '9G) ; ]\hiimtins (Haacke '80, Ludwig '83) ; 

 Seychelles (Lampert '85) ; Piotti, Bay of Pepela (Sluiter : 01) ; Lucipara Is. 

 (Sluiter : 01) ; Saleyer Is. (Sluiter : 01) ; Gisser (Sluiter : 01) ; Kabaëna 

 I. (Sluiteiî : 01) ; Amlx)ina (Sluiter '94) ; Philippine Is, (Ludwig '74) ; 

 Pelew Is. (Ludwig '74) ; Austiulia (Semper '67 — 8) ; Samoa, Navigator Is. 

 (Théel '86) ; Sandwich Is. (Selenka '67) ; Tahiti (Ludwig '74) ; Ptotuma 

 (Bedford '99) ; Pacific coasts of Japan ; Liu-Kiu Is. 



31. Holothurta seahva Jaeger, 



(Textfig, 24). 



Hdoihnria scahra Jaeger 183,3, p. 23. — Brandt 1835, p, oG. — Selenka 

 1867, p. 341.— Semper 1?67— '68, pp. 79, 247, Taf. XIX,, Taf. XXXIU,, 

 Fig. 15, Taf, XXXIV,, Figs, 2, 3, 4.— Selenka 1868, p, 118,— Ludwig 

 1880, p, 6,— Haacke 1880, p, 46.— Ludwig 1881, p. 599,— Ludwig 1882, 

 p, 135,— Ludwig 1883, p. 168,— Lampert 1885, p, 69,— Théel 1886r^ p. 

 234.— Ludwig 1887r^ p. 31,— Ludwig 1887/>, pp, 1224, 1242,— Sluiter 

 1887, p, 193,— Ludwig 1888, p. 807,— Ludwig 1889— '92, p, 330.— Sluiter 



