STARFISHES OF THE PHILIPPINE SEAS. 427 



chel, 1842, p. 22, footnote). This would make Othilia a synonym of 

 Echinaster Miiller and Troschel. Echinaster would therefore be the 

 correct name for the genus which I call Othilia, while the genus here 

 called Echinaster would receive, as I pointed out in 1913, the name of 

 Rhopia Gray. Verrill has since published his views (1914^^, p. 207, 

 1915, p. 36) but appears not to have seen my note of 1913. 



The distinction between the restricted Echinaster and Othilia may 

 seem a trifle subtle. In practice, however, it has not been difficult to 

 use the two groups — at least so far as species which I have person- 

 ally examined are concerned. It may be noted that the same differ- 

 ence separates Henrida and Cribraster, the latter corresponding to 

 Echinaster. The following notes will present my reasons for retain- 

 ing the name Othilia for the American species. 



The original description ^ of Echinaster is not accessible, but it was 

 reprinted ^ in September of the same year in the Archiv f iir Natur- 

 geschichte, with the following enumeration of species: "4 Arten: A, 

 sepitosa Lam. [=J.. seposita], A. echinophora Lam. {Pentadactylo- 

 saster spinosus Linck), E. spongiosus Nob. (Linck, t. 36, n. 62) und 

 eine neue Art." As a footnote is the following : " Echinaster ist der 

 alteste von Luidius und Petiver fiir ein hierher gehoriges Tier 

 gebrauchte Name." There was no designation of type. Two years 

 later in the System der Asteriden (p. 22), the species of 

 Echinaster are cited in different order, namely : spinosus, hrasiliensis, 

 crassus, gracilis, sepositus, fallax, eridanella, serpentarius, oculatus, 

 eschi'ichtii, solans. In a footnote referring to Echinaster, the note 

 quoted above is somewhat amplified as follows : " Ein von Luidius, 

 Petiver und Linck zur Bezeichnung eines hierher gehorigen Tieres, 

 Asterias echinophora Lam., angewandter Name." This seems to me 

 to be not a designation of type but an explanation of the derivation 

 of the new generic name, employed previously by Petiver in the 

 following polynomial: '''' E chinaster sen stella coriacea pentadactyla 

 echinata." Asterias seposita was given first place in the original 

 description of Echinaster and it is reasonable to consider the Euro- 

 pean species as the type, as is very generally done when the genotype 

 is in doubt. 



Professor Verrill (1914&, p. 207) says: "The type of the latter 

 {^Echinaster Miiller and Troschel] was E. spinosus= Asterias echi- 

 nophora Lam., both by virtual tautology and by designation." As 

 pointed out in the preceding paragraph, Miiller and Troschel's 

 " designation " is simply an explanation of the derivation of their 

 name. The alleged tautology seems to me to be rather strained, inas- 

 much as echin/>phora was not a tenable name according to Miiller 



* Monatsber. d. k. preuss. Akad. d. Wlss. Berlin, April, 1840, p. 102. 



* Archiv f. Naturgesch. 6. Jahrg., vol. 1, p. 321. 



