REPORT ON THE ASTEROIDEA. ill 
my opinion, inadequate and artificial; and I have been led to formulate a classification more 
in accordance with morphological characters as at present understood. I venture to believe 
that this will be found more convenient for general workers, as well as more natural. 
In dealing with the synonymy of a species I have in each case given all the different 
name-combinations under which the form has been recognised and the author by whom 
each was originated, but I have not given a citation of all subsequent writers by whom 
the terms have been copied or used. By this means brevity has been gained, without 
sacrificing anything pertinent to the history of the name. 
In order to add to the completeness of the work, I have given under each genus a 
notice of all authentic species belonging thereto, and their geographical distribution. I 
have also added at the end of the Report a synoptic list of the known species of recent 
Asteroidea, with particulars of their geographical and bathymetrical distribution, the 
changes of name to which they have been subjected, and their synonyms, which I hope 
will increase the utility of the Report. A few species which have been inadvertently 
omitted in the chorological statement of the genera will be found duly recorded in this 
list. 137 genera and 810 species are here enumerated. 
The urgent need of a critical examination by one person of the large number of types 
distributed throughout the various Continental collections has long been felt by every 
worker at the group, as many of the types in question have been very imperfectly known, 
and, owing to insufficient description, numberless false determinations and a confusing 
multiplication of synonymous terms have arisen. To eliminate as far as possible this 
element of perplexity, I have visited the chief Continental museums and have personally 
studied the rich collections at Christiania, Stockholm, Lund, Copenhagen, Leyden, Paris, 
Berlin, Kiel, Hamburg, Leipzig, Breslau, and Vienna. I venture to believe that the 
labour thus expended will place the list now given on a more reliable basis than was pre- 
viously possible. 
I desire to acknowledge gratefully the privileges afforded me in this undertaking, and 
to express my hearty thanks to the Heads of the various universities and museums, who, 
without exception, placed the collections under their charge unreservedly at my disposal. 
‘lo the many eminent naturalists who have given me valuable assistance and information 
I desire to tender my sincere thanks. Some obligations are acknowledged in the text, 
and in addition to those I cannot refrain from naming here the late Prof. M. Esmark and 
Dr. Robert Collett of Christiania ; Prof. S. Lovén of Stockholm; Dr. Hjalmar Théel of 
Upsala ; Dr. C. D. E. Roth of Lund; Prof. J. J. 8. Steenstrup and Prof. Chr. F. Liitken 
of Copenhagen ; the late Prof. H. Schlegel and Dr. F. A. Jentink of Leyden ; Prof. 
Edmond Perrier and M. J. Poirier of Paris; the late Prof. W. Peters, Prof. Ed. von 
Martens and Dr. F. Hilgendorff of Berlin; Prof. Karl Mobius of Kiel; Prof. H. A. 
Pagenstecher and Dr. G. Pfeffer of Hamburg ; Prof. R. Leuckart and Prof. J. V. Carus of 
Leipzig ; Prof. Anton Schneider of Breslau; Dr. F. Steindachner and Dr. Emil von 
