108 BULLETIN 76, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



less weight than formerly to the presence of actinal spines. One of the alleged 

 differences between eupleda and hypacantha is the presence in the latter of well- 

 developed actinal spines, but on going over some old material of eupleda I find 

 actinal spines present, though less well developed, in two Hawaiian specimens. It 

 seems probable, therefore, that the record of eupleda from the Philippines (Fisher, 

 1919, p. 487) is based upon a specimen of hypacantha without actinal spines. The 

 forms will stand: 



Sclerasterias eupleda (Fisher), Hawaiian Islands. 



Sderasterias eupleda hypacantha (Fisher), Philippines. 



Sclerasterias eupleda stenactis (Clark), Natal. 



S. eupleda hypacantha closely resembles eupleda but has longer, slenderer rays 

 in fully grown specimens (type of eupleda, R = 8.8 r; type of hypacantha, R = 16 r; 

 probably extreme of difference). The crossed pedicellariae, however, are the best 

 criterion. Those of hypacantha have more numerous teeth in the vertical series, 

 when the inner side of the jaw is compared in profile. (PI. 52, figs. 4, 5.) I have 

 seen the type of S. stenactis, but have not been able to compare it directly with 

 S. hypacantha which it greatly resembles. This form, like eupleda and hypacantha, 

 has an evident inferomarginal web. There is a series of small dorsolateral spines. 

 Finally all three of these forms may prove to be races of mazophora. Alcock 39 in a 

 rather detailed description states that "each plate of the midradial (carinal) and 

 superomarginal rows and in large specimens each plate of the other two rows (dorso- 

 laterals), bears at the decussation of its composite cross pieces a large spine." As 

 regards the carinals and superomarginals, this is not typical of Sclerasterias. If 

 true, mazophora bears no close relationship to the three forms under discussion for 

 these, as well as most species of Sclerasterias, bear spines only on alternate carinal 

 and superomarginal plates. It may prove to be a Distolasterias. 



S. tanneri, however, frequently has most of the carinals spiniferous and is aber- 

 rant also in lacking, except in quite small specimens, the specialized areas of pebbling 

 on the superomarginals. 



S. contorta (Perrier) is a well-marked species from off Barbados to Florida. As in 

 tanneri, the carinal spines are more numerous than every other plate, but unlike 

 tanneri the superomarginals have a pebbled area. Asterias angulosa Perrier, not 

 Miiller [ = Orthasterias (Stylasterias) subangulosa Verrill], is probably the young. 



In the above enumeration of species are not included certain young forms of 

 which the adult is not known but which probably belong in this genus. 



Asterias richardi Perrier 1892 (Hyd raster ias richardi Perrier, 1894). 



Sclerasterias nitida Koehler, possibly the young of S. mazophora. 



In the description of Hydrasterias richardi, Perrier 40 states that only one infero- 

 marginal spine is present and so figures it. There are two. This species may be a 

 form of negleda. 



Verrill 41 has included S. tanneri and S. eustyla in Orthasterias, and S. contorta, 

 S. subangulosa, and S. negleda in his subgenus (or genus) Stylasterias. In this also 

 he places Distolasterias robusta (Ludwig). 42 In my opinion Orthasterias and Stylas- 



» Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol. 11, 1S93, p. 116. " 1914, Shallow-water Starfishes, pp. 48, 168, 370. 



<» Exped. Travailleur et Talisman, 1894, p. 109, pi. 9, flg. 4. « Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 32, 1908, pp. 350, 373. 



