18 BULLETIN 82, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



According to Carpenter, brevipinna differs from pourtalesi in having "the genital 

 pinnules comparatively slender, with very slightly expanded joints." 



The difference between pourtalesi and brevipinna as given by Carpenter is merely 

 one of age; they are therefore identical. 



Pourtales' granuUjera was fnlly grown; it had "bead-like tubercles" which are 

 "found generally on the radials [that is, IBr series]" and "five knobs projecting into 

 the interambulacral spaces [the ends of the basal rays]." The name granulijera 

 indicates a species more or less covered with granules. 



But in the Challenger report we find this diagnosis of granulifera: IIBr 4 (3+4); 

 "a syzygy between the first two brachials; calyx and arm bases not spinous; the 

 first two pinnules about equal, with compressed and carinate joints; the genital 

 pinnules have unequally expanded joints; the distichal axUlaries of adjacent rays 

 partially separated by the pinnule of the preceding joint; palmars [IIIBr series] 

 usually present; the second syzygy from the twentieth to the twenty-fifth brachial." 

 As nothing is said about any ornamentation, and as granulifera is paired with 

 (Pachyloineira) distinda, a smooth species which is said to differ only in having "the 

 lower pinnules comparatively slender," the inference is that Carpenter considered 

 granulifera an imornamented species. 



Moreover in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge there is a jar 

 containing fragments of an unornamented species with the label "Antedon granu- 

 lifera" in Pourtales' hand writing, and apparently Carpenter had this specimen in 

 mind when he rediagnosed granulifera. 



But in the Museum of Comparative Zoology there is a second beautiful speci- 

 men without a label which I take to be in reality the type of granidifera. 



As described by Pourtal&s granulifera can not be distinguished from pourtalesi as 

 diagnosed by Carpenter, nor does it appear to differ from the young brevipinna of 

 Pourtales. 



But the granulifera of Carpenter is evidently not the granulifera of Pourtales, 

 and on the basis of the diagnosis in the Challenger report was therefore renamed 

 imbricata. 



A specimen of Heliometra tanneri is recorded with an additional first and second 

 brachial on one arm which is described as a distichal (IIBr) series ^vith the more 

 distal element of the pair not axillary. 



A 12-armed specimen of Heliometra maxima from southern Sakhalin Island is 

 described, which gives added weight to the idea of the close relationship between 

 Heliometra and Promachocrinus, first worked out on the basis of the arm and pinnule 

 structure, and the structure of the articular faces of the radials. It is noted that 

 P. H. Carpenter has recorded the occurrence of a single radial bearing two costal 

 (IBr) series in Comaster [Neocomatella] alata {Actinometra pulchella), but in this case 

 the definitive arms were smaller than the normal arms. 



It is suggested that Promachocrinus may have been derived from Heliometra by a 

 simple division, or doubling, of the radials at an early growth stage, each resultant 

 half of the original radials being of equal vegetative power. The basal rays of the 

 adult Promachocrinus He under one of each of the pairs of radials instead of between 

 the pairs as would naturally be expected, this change in position possibly occurring 



