A MONOGRAPH OF THE EXISTING CRINOIDS 395 



like different species, although the usual specific characters agree. One of the speci- 

 mens which he recorded from lat. 25° 33' N., long. 84° 21' W., in 101 fathoms, has 

 proved to be a small example of Neocomatella pulchella. 



In his memoir on the Comasteridae (the genus Actinometra as understood by 

 him) published in 1879 Dr. P. H. Carpenter assigned meridionalis (which he had not 

 seen) to Antedon on the basis of the available descriptions. Miiller's echinoptera he 

 was unable to place, but on the strength of the marked comb described by Miiller 

 he tentative!}' assigned it to Actinometra, in spite of the fact that Miiller said 

 nothing about the position of the mouth. 



In the autumn of 1880 Carpenter visited Berlin and was then able to examine 

 the type specimen of echinoptera. 



In his preliminary report upon the Blake comatulids published in 1881 Doctor 

 Carpenter wrote that, although three-fourths of the species of Comasteridae from 

 the Caribbean Sea are 10-armed, there is not one among them that recalls Solaris 

 of the eastern seas in which the elements of the IBr series and the first 2 brachials 

 are united by syzygy. All of the 10-armed comasterids of the West Indies belong 

 to a type which is but slightly represented in the Eastern Hemisphere — that of 

 Actinometra meridionalis. In this type the elements of the IBr series and the first 

 2 brachials are united by synarthry and not by syzygy. Nearly all of the 10-armed 

 comasterids in the Eastern Hemisphere belong to the Solaris type, and the only 

 exceptions known to him were Actinometra cumingii from Malacca and 2 or 3 

 undescribed species from China, Japan, and Sumatra. 



He mentioned that the specimens wliich had been sent to the museums at 

 Edinburgh and at Copenhagen under the name of [Coccometra] hagenii were varietal 

 forms of meridionalis, and that 3 other species had been confused with hagenii. 

 Similarly, he wrote, the specific designation meridionalis had been applied to almost 

 every species with 10 arms and an excentric mouth, and even in two cases to 

 forms with more than 10 arms, owing to some of the rays forking twice. All of these, 

 he said, were true comasterids with combed oral pinnules. 



He noted that Pourtal^s seemed to think that the species varied considerably 

 with age; but he said that almost all the characters given by the latter in his specific 

 description would apply equally well to every 10-armed comasterid which has no 

 syzygy in the IBr series, including those of the eastern seas, such as Miiller's cumingii, 

 and echinoptera, from an unknown locality, wliich are, nevertheless, perfectly distinct 

 from meridionalis and from one another. 



He therefore restricted the specific name meridionalis to the type from South 

 Carolina upon which it had originally been conferred; but he wrote that the only 

 example of it which had reached him was too imperfect for a satisfactory specific 

 diagnosis to be framed from it, but it was valuable from the fact that it had two 

 pentacrinoids entangled in its cirri. 



He was inclined to agree with Count Pourtal^s in thinking that the specimens 

 from French Reef belong to the same type, and also those obtained by the Ilassler off 

 Cape Frio; but he remarked that the latter certainly constitute a strongly marked 

 variety, as was indicated by Pourtal6s on his labels, which differs from the French 



