226 J. H. ORTON. 



pass under other names. It is therefore improbable that the literature 

 on these Holothurians will be properly purged until some specialist can 

 take the whole group into consideration and obtain and compare type 

 specimens from the various authors and stations. 



A few observations on the literature may, however, be useful. From 

 the establishment of the complex nature of Cucumaria montagui, it seems 

 highly probable that the earlier British naturalists were familiar with 

 the constituents of the complex under the names of Holothuria pentactes 

 and H. pentactes var. montagui Fleming. The descriptions of these 

 animals are, as Norman has already pointed out (1905), insufficient to 

 enable us to identify them. These names should therefore be abandoned 

 on this ground if on no other. In 1828 Fleming (5) called H. pentactes 

 var. montagui definitely H. montagui, but, as Pace (1904) pointed out, 

 Fleming unfortunately based his description of this form on specimens 

 which were obtained from the Firth of Forth and which may have be- 

 longed to another species. Thus we have no criterion as to what Cucu- 

 maria montagui really is. 



In 1871 Brady and Robertson (4) discovered a species of Cucu- 

 maria in Westport and Birterbury Bays, Ireland, and gave a good 

 description of the spicules. This species they named C. saxicola. 

 In 1882 Barrois (6) found a species of Cucumaria at Concarneau 

 on the shore which he called C. lefevrei. This species resembles 

 that described by Pace (1904) as C. normani closely in the characters 

 of its spicules (as described) and its calcareous collar. It is, 

 indeed, highly probable that these are the same species, but it would 

 be necessary to compare actual specimens of these forms to be certain 

 of their identity. If, however, such were established Pace's name would 

 have to give way to that of Barrois'. It should be pointed out that 

 Barrois' figures do not agree with his description. 



In 1889 Herouard (7), having apparently never seen Brady and 

 Robertson's description of C. saxicola, described a form apparently 

 identical with the latter as Colochirus lacazei n.sp. It is a somewhat 

 amusing fact that this writer was roundly accused shortly afterwards 

 by Marenzeller (8, 1893) of wilfully renaming what he well knew was 

 C. montagui. It is also of interest that Marenzeller — like Pace — states 

 confidently in the same paper that C. montagui is quite and obviously 

 different from C. lefevrei Barrois. Now Marenzeller's C. montagui were 

 sent to him by Norman (2, p. 389), who definitely states they were like 

 his specimens B and C, which have been shown above to be C. saxicola. 



About the same time Ludwig and Hamann (9, 1892) state, but with- 



