A MONOGRAPH OF THE EXISTING CRINOIDS 331 



my paper revising the old genus Ardedon published in the preceding year I had 

 followed Carpenter in placing Antedon dubeni of Bohlsche near Antedon bifida in 

 the genus Antedon as restricted, whereas it is merely the young of Tropiometra 

 carinata. In a paper publislied op May 14, referring to the 6-rayed specimens from 

 Rio de Janeiro, I spoke of the more or less normal multiradiate condition in Tropio- 

 metra carinata, and in another paper published on June 9 I remarked that Tropiometra 

 carinata, constant in its characters from east Africa to Oceania, is extremely variable 

 in Brazil. In a paper published on June 16 I mentioned the completely G-rayed 

 condition sometimes found in Tropiometra carinata, and in another paper published 

 on July 15, in recording instances of regeneration of the cirri in Tropiometra ajra 

 (macrodiscus) , I noted that regeneration of the cirri appears to be rare among the 

 comatulids, having been reported previously only in Tropiometra carinata and, more 

 recently, in Decametrocrinus vanhoffenianus {=Promachocrinus kerguelensis) . 



In a paper published on August 25, 1908, I wrote that there can be little doubt 

 that Alecto carinata Leach, 1815, is the same species as Comatula carinata Lamarck, 

 1816, as was suggested by Lamarck himself. The description, however, is quite use- 

 less, and the type has been lost. We know what Lamarck's species really is. There- 

 fore, we must date the name from Lamarck, 1816, with Alecto carinata Leach, 1815, 

 as a questionable synonym. Regarding Antedon capensis I WTote that Professor Bell 

 described this species in the Basicurva group, whereas it really belongs with Comatula 

 carinata of Lamarck, placed by P. H. Carpenter in the Milberti group. I said that I 

 had examined some of the original specimens and could not separate them from true 

 Comatula carinata from Mauritius or Zanzibar. I added that Comatula carinata from 

 East Africa varies very little, but specimens from the West Indies and Brazil are 

 very variable, especially in regard to the carmatiou of the amis. SLx-rayed individuals 

 also are common at the latter locality. Under Antedon gorgonia I wrote that it is 

 difficult to see just why there has been so much confusion in regard to this species. 

 Dr. P. H. Carpenter followed Lamarck in placing it with a query in the sj^nonymy 

 of Comatula carinata Lamarck, 1816, and said that the type of Antedon is a tropical 

 species. It is wholly improbable that any Antedon could cling to the growth on a 

 ship's bottom from the most northern point in the range of Comatula carinata all the 

 way to Havre without getting swept off or killed by the violent wave action to which 

 it would of necessity be subjected; moreover, it is extremely doubtful whether 

 Comatula carinata from the littoral zone of the Tropics could survive the cold surface 

 water of the ocean off the coast of France, even in summer. On the other hand, if 

 there were any individuals of Antedon bifida living about the dock (and the old- 

 fashioned dry dock is very attractive to marine organisms) it is quite probable that 

 they would become disturbed by the commotion caused by an entering ship and 

 swim about; and they would be as likely to settle on the ship's bottom as anjwiiere 

 else. Therefore it seemed to me that there can be no doubt that the type of Antedon 

 gorgonia came from Havre. The figure to which de Fr^minville refei-s undoubtedly 

 represents Antedon bifida. Antedon gorgonia was referred luiconditionally to Asteria^ 

 bifida by Bell in 1892, but he did not state his reasons for doing this at the time, nor 

 has anything been published on the subject since. I added that as it is of considerable 

 importance to have a definite type for the genus {Antedon) the preceding remarks 

 may not be entirely superfluous. I also noted that Bohlsche's Antedon diibenii is 



