332 bi i.i.k rm 82 man bd states national museum 



pinnules are Blender, 7 mm. long, with 19 Begmenta oi winch the distal are ahout twice 

 as loni: as broad. 



Localities, Japan (A. 11. (lark. 1908, 1909, 1912, 1915, 1918; Gislen, 1919, 

 l»24] (I.C. M.). 



No localitj ; C. Bberatein [A. II. (lark, 1912, 1915, 1918] (l. II. M.). 



History. This Bpecies, which had long before received the manuscript name of 

 Mecto aehlegelii from Dr. Christian V. Ltttken, was firsl described by mo in k908 under 

 the name of Himerometra aehlegelii. The description was based upon two specimen- 

 from Japan in the Copenhagen Museum that had been labeled Aleeto Schlegelii by 

 Dr. Ltttken. 



On the establishment of the genus Amphimetra in 1909 schlegelii was transferred 

 bo it. Later in the same year the two original specimens were again mentioned. At 

 that time I wrote that this species is most closely related to Amjihimetra ensiftir and, 

 like that form, lias the disk completely covered with a pavement of small plates. It 

 may be distinguished at a glance, however, by the longer and much more prominent 

 dorsal spines on the cirrus segments, and by the comparatively small size of the 

 synarthria] tubercles. 



In 1912 I described another specimen, which 1 had examined at the Hamburg 

 Museum in 1910. 1 wrote that this species is closely related to Amjihimetra philiberti, 

 but it may easily be distinguished by the longer proximal cirrus segments, the longer 

 and more prominent spines on the distal cirrus segments, and by tlie smaller number 

 of arms. It is a considerably smaller and more delicate species than A. philiberti. 



I said further that at the time I described schlegelii I had before me two specimens, 

 one with 10 and the other with 13 arms, which were of the same size and general 

 appearance. Such differences as I found between them I considered as probably the 

 result of individual variation. At Hamburg there were also two specimens, one with 

 ID and I lie other with 12 arms, which resembled (he pair in the Copenhagen Museum. 



The presence in the collection of (he Hamburg Museum of the type specimen of 

 Im r'rjiinini, and of six specimens of philiberti, a species 1 had not seen when 1 described 

 schlegelii, showed clearly that the 10-armed specimen at Copenhagen and the one at 

 Hamburg are specifically identical wilh Carpenter's laevipinna, while the 12- and 13- 

 armed specimens represent a very distinct form, easily differentiated by the strong 

 oarination of the pinnules, related to p/iiliberti. 



I remarked further that the specimen I selected as the type of schlegelii when I 

 wrote the original description happened to be (he one with 13 arms. Thus while the 

 specimen with 111 .inns, at first considered as identical with it, must be referred to 

 laevipvMM, the name schlegelii is available for the 13-armed specimen, and for the 

 12-armed example at Hamburg, which represents the same species. 



In conclusion I said that schlegelii appears to be the northern representa(ive of 

 philiberti, just as laevipinna l< the northern representative of the dixcoidea group of 

 species that is, <»f Am phi mitrn as now understood. 



In my memoir on the orinoids of the Indian Ocean published in 1912 I listed Am- 

 phimetra tchlegelU and gave as the range Japan and southward to New Guinea, Tonga, 

 and liji. The last ihree localities refer to Amphimetra parpuensis and arc based on 

 specimens from Port Moresby and Hood lagoon, New Guinea, in the Australian 

 Museum, which were recorded in 1911 as Amphimetra diseoidea, and others from 



