374 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 
Locality.—“ Porcupine” Expedition : 
Station 474. 1869. In the Faerée Channel. Lat. 59° 34’ N., long. 7° 18’ W. Depth 
542 fathoms. Bottom temperature 6°°5 C.; surface temperature 12°:2 C. 
Remarks.—I have expressed the opinion on a preceding page that Goniaster hispi- 
dus, Sars, is congeneric with the present starfish. I have, however, never seen an example 
of Goniaster hispidus, but so far as I can judge from the admirable description and figures 
given by Sars, Lasiaster villosus differs from that form by the definitely prolonged rays, 
by the absence of the marginal fringe of spines on the infero-marginal plates, by the 
actinal intermediate plates bearing a group of spines instead of arc-formed series of spines, 
and by the different character of the adambulacral armature, which in Lasvaster villosus 
consists of a pair of spinelets on the furrow margin of the plate and a transverse series of 
three on the actinal surface, whereas in Lasiaster hispidus the armature is described as 
forming a transverse series only. It is to be remarked that an approximation to this 
arrangement occurs at the extremity of the ray of Lasiaster villosus, from which it may be 
inferred to be a juvenile character. 
From its small size the type-example of Lasiaster hispidus is probably an immature 
specimen, but from the differences above mentioned I do not suppose that it belongs to the 
same species as the form under notice. Danielssen and Koren’ state that large examples 
of Lasiaster hispidus (one measuring 72 mm, in diameter) have been dredged in the 
Drontheim Fjord by Mr Storm, but no details are given. The Goniaster hispidus of Sars 
was referred by Perrier*® to the genus Pentagonaster (and placed in the subgenus Astro- 
gonium), an opinion with which I am unable to agree. 
Family AsTERINID& (Gray, 1840), emend. Perrier, 1875. 
This family appears superficially to hold an intermediate position in many respects 
between the Phanerozonia and Cryptozonia. The marginal plates in the genera Asterina 
and Palmipes, although exceedingly small, essentially define the ambitus in a conspicuous 
manner; in other members of the family, however, they are large and superficially 
Phanerozonid in their character. This circumstance, taken in conjunction with the strictly 
limited abactinal distribution of the papulz, and the nature of the actinal plating, appear 
to me to justify the classification of the Asterinids under the Phanerozonia. Further- 
more, the alliance of some genera of the Asterinidz with the Gymnasteriide is unquestion- 
able, and their natural position would appear to be in sequence to the latter family. The 
general structure of the Asterinide, as a whole, supports these views. 
I am unable to agree with the classification of Dr Viguier,s who includes in the 
Den Norske-Nordhavs Expedition, 1876-1878, Zoologi, xi. Asteroidea, Christiania, 1884, p. 58. 
Nouv. Archives Mus. Hist. Nat., 1878, 2e Série, t. i. p. 84. 
Archives de Zool. expér., 1878, t. vii. p. 205. 
oOo mpm 
