A MONOGRAPH OF THE EXISTING CRINOIDS 545 



though he failed to detect the correspondence between the interradial structure in 

 this specimen and in the one figured by Goldfuss. 



In 1839 Goldfuss referred his Comatula multiradiata to the genus Comaster, which 

 had been erected by Louis Agassiz in 1836. 



In 1841 Muller described under the name of Alecto bennetti 2 specimens in the 

 Leyden Museum which had been collected by Mr. George Bennett, but which had 

 no definite locality label. Miiller had not himself seen the specimens, his description 

 being based upon notes furnished him by Troschel. 



Speaking of Goldfuss' specimen, Muller said that the Indian Comatula inulii- 

 radiata of Goldfuss diff'ers from the ordinarj' comatulids through the possession of 

 basals, and added that Mr. Agassiz had correctly erected a special genus, Comaster, 

 for its reception. But Agassiz' genus Comaster was based upon the Comatula multi- 

 radiata of Lamarck, and not upon the Comatula multiradiata of Goldfuss. The 

 Comatula multiradiata of Lamarck, which is not the same as the Asterias multiradiata 

 of Linn6, 1758, was reidentified by Miiller and redescribed as Alecto multifida. The 

 typo of Comaster, therefore, is Comatula multiradiata Lamarck, 1816 (not Asterias 

 multiradiata Linn6, 1758)= Alecto multifida J. Muller, 1841. 



Muller added that he regarded Agassiz' genus Comaster (with the assumed type 

 Comatula multiradiata Goldfuss) as not different from the fossil genus Solanocrinus. 



Muller believed that since Comatula mtdtiradiata Lamarck, 1816, and Comatula 

 multiradiata Goldfuss, 1832, are different species, and since Lamarck's species is 

 quite unrecognizable from his description, the name multiradiata must hold for 

 Goldfuss' type, which was adequately described and figured. 



In 1849 Muller repeated without change his original description of bennetti, 

 referring it to the genus Comatula. 



He said that he was unable to determine with certainty the specimen figured 

 by Goldfuss; but if the drawing of the ossicles of the division series is correct and 

 syzygies were not overlooked, the species would be Comatula bennetti, as it agrees 

 with that form in the large number of arms, in the form and number of the ossicles 

 in the division series, and also in the number of the cirrus segments. 



He remarked that Goldfuss's dissected specimen is no longer to be found in the 

 collection at Bonn. But he found there another complete specimen in alcohol 

 labeled Comatula multiradiata. In this the cirri have up to 23 segments. All of the 

 axillaries are syzygial pairs, and on the arms there are about 6 muscidar articulations 

 between successive syzygies. He noted that this had not so many arms as the one 

 figiu-ed by Goldfuss, and in this feature, as well as in the occurrence of syzygies in 

 the axillaries, it agrees with the multiradiatus of Retzius {Capillaster multiradiata). 



Dujardin and Hup4 in 1862 under the name of Comatula bennetti, published a 

 translation of Miiller's original description of this species. In their description of 

 Comatula multifida they said that the number of arms may rise as high as 50. This 

 number I believe to have been taken from the specimen of bennetti, with 56 arms, 

 which was collected by P^ron and Lesueur in 1803 and included by Lamarck in his 

 Comatula multiradiata. They accepted Comaster as a genus distinct from Comatula. 

 In it they included only a single species, Comaster multiradiatus Goldfuss, under 

 which they erroneously included as a synonym Comaster multiradiatus Agassiz, 

 which is the Alecto multifida of Muller, 1841. 

 97298—31 36 



