18 THE ECHINODERMS OF TORRES STRAIT. 
speckled, blotched, or variegated with yellow-green or yellow, but in none of the Philippine 
specimens, nor in any recorded cases, is there any approach to the green and yellowish-white 
coloration of callipepla. 
Since examination of the holotype (M. C. Z. No. 579) Mr. Clark has decided that it is 
annulata, an opinion in which I can not possibly concur. Among hundreds of annulata 
seen at Mer, the maximum number of arms noted was 47 and the largest number I have 
found recorded is 68. Moreover, the coloration of callipepla is quite different from that of 
any of the multitudinous color forms of annulata. Finally the iii Br series is 2, not 4 (3+4), 
and hence by Mr. Clark’s own system of generic division callipepla is a Comantheria and 
not a Comanthus at all! I am glad, however, that he is ready to admit it is not briareus. 
The only individual of this superb comatulid which we saw was found among living 
“stag-horn”’ corals near the outer edge of the reef-flat at Mer. It was kept alive in the 
laboratory nearly 24 hours while the colored figure was being made, but it died and broke 
to pieces early in the morning of the second day. Hence, as a holotype it is now in a frag- 
mentary condition, but still reveals all the essential characters, and even the colors are 
but little changed. 
Comanthus luteofusca. 
H. L. Clark. 1915. Carnegie Inst. Pub. No. 212, p. 102. 
(Plate 20, Figures 2 and 3.) 
This pretty little comatulid is not at all rare at Mer, though not abundant. It occurs 
with annulata but is readily distinguished from that species. The color shows little diver- 
sity, ranging only from a rather light to a rather dark yellow-brown; occasionally the brown 
is dark and has a greenish cast and rarely the distal part of the arms is green or greenish 
yellow; the cirri are bright brown or yellowish. Before seeing specimens, Mr. A. H. Clark 
(1918, Siboga Comat., p. 56) was of the opinion that this is only a form of parvicirra; it is, 
however, much nearer annulata, and if these two species are to be maintained as distinct 
from each other luteofusca would seem to be entitled to recognition. Mr. Clark distinguishes 
annulata from parvicirra only by the more numerous arms and the absence of cirri. Natur- 
ally, under such an arrangement luteofusca would seem to be identical with parvicirra, but 
anyone who will take the trouble to examine carefully the original description of the 
Murray Island species will see easily why such is not the case. On the other hand, the line 
between luleofusca and small, dark specimens of annulata with 16 to 18 cirri is not so 
easy to draw, and I hesitated whether to consider the small brown individuals merely a 
variety of annulata or to rank them as a distinct species. The latter course seemed to me 
better and I see no reason to regret it. 
Since examining my material (M. C. Z. Nos. 536 to 542 and 580; holotype, No. 536) 
Mr. Clark suggests that luteofusca is identical with samoana, and after comparison of speci- 
mens I think he is probably right. But I am letting the name stand for the present because 
I find that there are two forms now included in the Museum of Comparitive Zoélogy col- 
lection, both from Mer and both identified by Mr. Clark as samoana. One of these has 
very rough cirri and is what I have called luteofusca; the other has smooth cirri and I have 
called it samoana. Mr. Clark has labeled one of these latter “nearly typical samoana.” 
Whether these two forms represent different species or not, Iam not prepared to say. They 
are easily distinguished from each other but I hardly think the difference will prove reliable. 
My first thought was to let luteofusca stand as the name for the form with the rough cirri 
and use samoana as the name of those which have the cirri smooth. But reference to Mr. 
Clark’s original description of samoana unfortunately shows that his types were the form 
with rough cirri. Hence it is the form with smooth cirri which lacks a name! For the pres- 
ent, however, the matter may rest, awaiting light on the relationship of the two forms. 
