290 BULLETIN 82, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



precise locality from the Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean, East Indies, ?India, eastern 

 Asia, South Sea Islands, and South Pacific Ocean. I said that, except for those 

 described in this paper, T. encrinus is known from only a very few specimens from 

 widely scattered localities which have not been compared directly, though from what 

 can be learned about them they seem all to be referable to the same form. 



In a paper on a collection of crinoids from St. Helena published in 1933 Dr. 

 Torsten Gisl^n went most carefully into the question of the status of the small forms 

 in the genus Tropiometra. He had before him the specimens from the Copenhagen 

 Museum previously studied and determined as encrinus by the author. He came to 

 the conclusion that encrinus is a valid form distinct from carinata, of which he regarded 

 picta as a synonym. In a paper on crinoids of South Africa published in 1938 

 Professor Gislen wrote: 



A. H. Clark in a letter to me (June 29th 1937) says that his earlier references to Tr. encrinus- 

 are very much mixed up. In the original description of this species (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. Vol. 

 40, p. 36) the number of cirrus-segments was taken from specimens of indica from Ceylon which at 

 that time he did not distinguish from encrinus. The specimens from Ceylon described in Crin. 

 Indian Ocean in 1912 are indica, not encrinus. At the time of the Siboga Report Mr. Clark says 

 that he had not seen any of the large specimens from India which he later determined as encrinus. 



The type-specimen of encrinus from "Eastern Asia", in the Berlin Musem, No. 5336 (cf. also 

 Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. Vol. 43, p. 402), is according to Mr. Clark probably identical with Tr. carinata. 

 On the other hand, under the name of Tr. encrinus, specimens are described and figured in 1932 

 (Rec. Ind. Museum Vol. 34, p. 561 S., Pis. 19, 20) which seem to be almost identical with my speci- 

 men described above [from False Bay, 17 fathoms = corma<a]. The only difTerence of any impor- 

 tance is that in my specimen there is a well-developed dorsal spine on the Brr of the middle arm-part. 



Mr. Clark says that the confusion in regard to Tr. encrinus is most unfortunate, but he recom- 

 mends giving a new name to the specimen from Mandapam described in detail on p. 561 (op. cit. 

 1932), which should then be the type. I do this, as it gives me the pleasure of dedicating the species 

 to my old friend Mr. A. H. Clark. 



The long and many-jointed cirri, together with the stout arm-bases and tolerably short arms 

 easily distinguish this species from those which are described earlier. 



The facts insofar as they concern the application of the name encrinus are as 

 foUows: 



In a list of Liitken's manuscript names which I published in 1909, Anfedon 

 encrinus is included and identified as Tropiometra carinata (Lamarck) . Later in the 

 same paper I included Alecto encrinus in the synonymy of Tropiometra carinata 

 without comment. In 1911, under" Tropiometra encrinus, new species," I listed some 

 features of the cirri (see page 288) with no reference to the specimen from which they 

 were taken. In 1912 a specimen in the Berlin Museum (No. 5336) from "Eastern 

 Asia," of which the characteristic cirri were briefly described, was said to be the type 

 of the species (see page 289). The Berlin specimen cannot be the type of the species, 

 for all previous references to the name encrinus were based upon a white specimen 

 from the "East Indies" in the Copenhagen Museum with which Liitken's manu- 

 script name Alecto encrinus was found, and which was recorded under the name of 

 Tropiometra carinata in 1909 with the remark that it has the brachial carination but 

 slightly marked. So far as the published information is concerned the name encrinus 

 rests upon published notes so very vague as to be useless for diagnostic purposes, 

 and there is no indication of the locality from which the type specimen came, or indeed 

 of any type specimen at all. The specimen designated as the type specimen in 1912 is 



