270 Verrill, Notes on Badiata. 



desirable, since the original descriptions by Dr. Liitken are somewhat 

 inaccessible in this country and have not been translated before. 



In the identiiication of some of the species I have had important 

 assistance from Mr. W. H. Niles, of the Sheffield Scientific School. 



In the preceding pages I have enumerated all the species of Ophiu- 

 rans which we have hitherto received from the Panamic Zoological 

 Province, with the exception of an apparently undescribed species of 

 Ophiura allied to 0. Panamensis^ and as yet represented by only 

 four specimens.* 



The following species, which I have not seen, have been described 

 from the same coast :f 



Ophiostigina tenue Liitken — Realejo, We=t Coast of Central America. 



Ophionereis Xantusii Lyman — Cape St. Lucas. 

 Amphiura niicrodiscus Liitken — Puntarenas. 

 Amphiura Orstedli Liitken — Puntarenas. 



Ophiopliragmus marginatiis (Liitken) Lyman — Puntarenas and Realejo. 



Ophiothrix dutnosa Lyman — Gulf of California. 



* The specimens referred to have rather slender arms, subcarinate above ;vadial 

 shields mostly covered, the naked part being oval, widely separated ; mouth-shields 

 oval, the narrowest end inward, about as long as broad ; side mouth-shields covered ; 

 mouth-papillse eight or nine on each side of the mouth-slits, the innermost and three 

 outermost stoutest; under arm-plates as long as broad, somewhat octagonal, with a 

 slightly convex outer edge and concave sides ; arm-spines eight to ten, the lowest one 

 considerably longest; the others decreasing in length to the uppermost, which is 

 quite short. 



Color, above, dark olive-green, the disk finely speckled and tlie arms conspicunusl}- 

 banded with greenish gray, the upper arm-plates with irregular longitudinal dark 

 streaks, and numerous light spots; lower surface yellowish white, tlie dark bands of 

 the arms passing entirely around, but lighter beneath. 



It appears to differ from 0. Punamensis in having only eight or nine mouth-papiUse 

 instead of from ten to twelve ; in the outermost of them being much smaller than the 

 next, mstead of projecting beyond it ; all of them being relatively larger and less 

 crowded; the tentacle-scales being less unequal in length ; the arm-spines more un- 

 equal, stouter, and more acute ; in the somewhat coarser and less crowded granulation 

 of the disk ; in the larger and less sunken radial shields (which are nearly covered, 

 however, in young specimens); and in the coloration. The outer and inner gen tial slits 

 appear to be nearer together and the inner ones more transverse. 



Notwithstanding these differences. I have deemed it best not to give a new name 

 to this form until more numerous specimens can be examined. 



Our largest specimen is "75 of an inch in diameter of disk. 



f Amphipliolis grisea Ljung., Guayaquil, appears to be an additional species, — 

 Reprint. 



