1901) or Stevens (1925), with the exception of 

 Pagurus munitus (Benedict). Authorities tend to 

 agree that P. munitus is actually P. cavimanus 

 (Miers) as stated by Makarov.' Identifications 

 of the macrurans were reviewed by Dr. Hol- 

 thuis. Dr. Dora P. Henry identified all the 

 barnacles. 



The tunicates were all identified by 

 Dr. Donald P. Abbott. The author identified 

 a few of the bryozoans, hydroids, annelids, 

 and the majority of the echinoderms. The 

 asteroids have been sent to Dr. Patricio 

 Sanchez, Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santi- 

 ago, Chile, for verification. 



Dr. Paul lUg, University of Washington, has 

 undertaken the identifications of the echiuroids, 

 and Dr. Henning Lemche, Universitets Zoolo- 

 giske Museunn, Denmark, is working on the 

 nudibranchs. Complete information on these 

 groups is not yet available. Other groups, as 

 yet unidentified to species, will be examined 

 in the future. The aninnals from which specific 

 identifications have been made remain with 

 the respective specialists. 



DISCUSSION 



In general, distribution of the comnnonest 

 species, i.e., Balanus hesperius, PandaZus borealis 

 eous, Pagurus alaskensis, Paralithodes camtschaiica, 

 Chionoecetes sp., Hyas coarctatus alutaceus, Erimacrus 

 isenbeckii, Neptunea lyrata. Asterios amurensis, Gor- 

 nocepkalus caryi, and Boltenia ovifera, did not vary 

 appreciably during the three sampling periods. 

 Although variations in the distribution of 

 species occurring less frequently were ap- 

 parent, such variations were most probably 

 attributable to inadequate sampling and gear 

 selectivity rather than to real changes in 

 distribution. For these reasons, no separa- 

 tion has been made of the invertebrate catch 

 by sampling periods. As no specific identifi- 

 cations were made aboard the vessel and only 

 randonn samples were preserved, it cannot 

 be assumed that the stations listed were the 

 only ones at which the species occurred. 



Appendix A- 1 lists those animals for which 

 identifications have been completed and the 

 stations at which these species were taken. 

 The distribution of some species was so 

 extensive that charts rather than station list- 

 ings have been used. Whenever possible the 

 original description of the species has been 

 consulted. Appendix A- 2 gives the sources used 



Makarov (1938) cites Eupagurus munitus Benedicr as a synonym of 

 Pagurus cavimanus in the Russian text of his paper; however, in his 

 EngLsh summary of the possible synonymy of Pagurus gilli and 

 P. cavimanus, he refers to Pagurus gilli - Pagurus minutus. The use 

 of P. minutus rather than P. munitus is obviously a typographical 

 error, as P. minutus is a species described from the Gulf of Cali- 

 fornia bearing no resemblance to P. cavimanus. 



when the original descriptions were not avail- 

 able. Appendix B lists, by stations, both the 

 species identified from the retained samples 

 and the groups recorded at the time of catch 

 as a composite of all three sampling peri- 

 ods. 



The gastropods apparently dominate the 

 surveyed area in species representation. 

 Thirty-five genera, 71 species, and 2 varieties 

 have been identified from these surveys. In 

 addition, 14 specinnens have been identified 

 to probable genera, but species identifications 

 have not been possible. In some instances the 

 aninnals are very small, and reference mate- 

 rial has not been available for comparison. 

 Consequently, it is not possible to determine 

 whether the animals are juvenile stages of 

 large forms, or adults of smaller forms. It 

 is possible that some are species not pre- 

 viously described. 



Neptunea lyrata is the most widely distributed 

 gastropod, occurring throughout most of the 

 area (fig. 8). The genus Oenopota with 10 spe- 

 cies, 1 variety, and 6 unidentified species has 

 by far the most specific representation. Mem- 

 bers of this genus and of the genera Margaritopsis 

 and Solariella were taken exclusively with the 

 dredge. Of the larger forms, species repre- 

 sentation is greatest in the genus Buccinum 

 with six species and one variety, and the genus 

 Colus with six species. It is believed that two 

 additional species of Succt'num and one additional 

 species of Colus are present in the collections, 

 but identifications are uncertain. 



The pelecypods rank second in the number 

 of genera and species found in the area. Of the 

 26 genera and 45 species represented, ap- 

 parently no single species is extensively dis- 

 tributed. 



Among the decapod representatives, the 

 genus Pagurus is outstanding in its specific 

 representation. Thirteen species, according to 

 Benedict's classification, are represented in 

 the area. This number, however, will be re- 

 duced considerably if Makarov' s synonymies 

 are found to be valid. The anomuran, Paralithodes 

 camtschatica (fig. 9), and the brachyuran, Erimacrus 

 isenbeckii (fig. 10), are particularly noteworthy 

 because of their extensive distribution through- 

 out the area. Distinction between the species 

 of Chionoecetes was not made at the time of 

 first exannination; thus distribution of the two 

 species Chionoecetes opilio (Fabricius, 1780) and 

 C. bairdi Rathbun, 1924, could not be deter- 

 mined. The genus, however, is represented in 

 almost the entire area (fig. 11). 



Tunicates in the eastern Bering Sea are 

 represented by 8 genera and 12 species. 

 Boltenia ovifera appears to be the most widely 

 distributed species. Members of all genera 



