262 BULLETIN 82, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



Rathbun. Professor Ludwig in 1882 considered the Brazilian form and that from 

 Mauritius specifically identical. In the Challenger reports (1884 and 1888) Carpenter 

 included under carinata all the forms now included in the genus Tropiometra that were 

 known to him. 



Professor de Loriol in 1893 after personal investigation reaflBrmed the specific 

 identity of specimens from Mauritius and Rio de Janeiro, but in 1897 Professor von 

 Ihering recorded specimens from Brazil as braziliensis. There is no evidence, how- 

 ever, that he compared these specimens with others from elsewhere. 



In 1907, upon the establishment of the new genus Tropiometra, I hsted Tropio- 

 metra hrazihensis in addition to T. carinata; but this meant nothing more than the 

 listing under the new generic name all described forms assignable to it, whether valid 

 or not. In 1908 I recorded 6-rayed specimens from Rio de Janeiro under the name 

 Tropiometra carinata, and in 1909 I recorded as T. carinata specimens from Zanzibar 

 and the "East Indies," mentioning imder the same name others from the western 

 Atlantic. In 1911, however, after having studied the material in the museums of 

 Europe in 1910 and having examined the types of Gay's picta in Paris, I recognized 

 carinata and picta (from St. Helena and the western Atlantic) as distinct, and briefly 

 diagnosed a third species, encnnns. To these were added in 1912 audouini from the 

 Red Sea and indica from Ceylon and the adjacent parts of India. These live forms 

 have been maintained by me ever since. 



Dr. Clemens Hartlaub in 1912 included all the smaller forms in the genus Tropio- 

 metra under carinata, following Carpenter (1888). 



Dr. August Reichensperger said (1913) that it seemed very questionable to him 

 whether encrinus could be maintained as distinct from carinata. He believed that 

 at best it might be considered as a geographical variety. He remarked that I gave 

 carinata from the south African region, and encrinus as ranging from Aden to the 

 East Indies and farther eastward, being especially conunon at Ceylon. He noted 

 that I had based encrinus almost exclusively on the form of the cirri and of the cirrus 

 segments, but from my statement there is little of a definite natm-e to be gathered. 

 He quoted the remarks made by me under Tropiometra encrinus in 1911 (see p. 288) 

 and said that a further supplement to this not very detailed specific description was 

 published in 1912. Here he quoted my notes on the 14 specimens of indica from 

 Ceylon in the British Museum (p. 338). Reichensperger said that there remains as 

 the single, in some measure valid, differential feature separating carinata from encrinus, 

 the partial third row of cirri on the centrodorsal of the latter; but this feature is not 

 always present, as of the 1 1 specimens he had before him from Ceylon 4 were without 

 it. He said that there is just as little to be learned from the carination of the brachials 

 or the relative stiffness of the lower pinnules. He noted that in his opinion the remark 

 expressed by me before the separation of encrinus that "specimens from south Africa, 

 east Africa, the East Indies, and the South Pacific ocean are very uniform in their 

 characters and agree in having a moderate or slight carination of the brachials" is 

 correct. Reichensperger said that I had pointed out that in specimens from Brazil 

 and the West Indies the carination of the arms is as a ride more marked and that it 

 sometimes may become especially strong; when this happens the ends of the pinnule 

 and cirrus segments are spinous. He added that I continued, "on the other hand, 

 specimens may readily be found quite as smooth as any from the Indian Ocean." 



