52 THE ECHINODERMS OF TORRES STRAIT. 
Nardoa novecaledoniz. 
Scytaster novecaledonie@ Perrier. 1875. Rev. Stell., Arch. Zodl. Exp., 4, p. 162 (426). 
Scytaster gomophia Perrier. 1875. Op. cit. p. 431 or 167. 
Nardoa novecaledonie Sladen. 1889. Challenger Ast., p. 412. 
It seems surprising that Perrier should have given two names to the same species 
in the same paper, but the explanation probably lies in the fact that the type of gomophia 
was in the British Museum, while that of novecaledonie was in Paris. When the descrip- 
tion of gomophia was drawn up, a comparison was made with Gomophia egyptiaca, but when 
novecaledonie was described the differences between it and variolata were what Perrier 
was seeking to emphasize. Fisher very kindly called my attention to the fact that some 
of my Nardoas from Mer were apparently gomophia. I subsequently discovered that 
they answer very exactly to Perrier’s description of novecaledonie and I am now satisfied 
the two species are the same; the longer name has page precedence. Fisher says in litt.: 
“Let me say that Perrier’s description of gomophia is misleading. The species is hardly dis- 
tinguishable from novecaledonie, or the specimens labeled as such by Perrier in the British Museum. 
I compared the type of gomophia side by side with these specimens. Perrier compares his specimen 
of gomophia with egyptiaca. Unless labels have been shifted accidentally to another specimen, 
this is very misleading, for N. gomophia does not resemble egyptiaca at all. 
The differences between variolata and novecaledonie@ are very slight and I at first 
called my specimens from Mer variolata. Besides the difference in the size of the distal 
abactinal plates, the central granules on those plates are very conspicuous in novecale- 
donie and not so in variolata. 
There are specimens of novecaledonie in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy from 
Green Island, Queensland, from Mer, and from Port Galera, Mindoro, Philippine Islands. 
The species was previously known from New Caledonia, the type locality for both nove- 
caledonie and gomophia. Bell records it from the Andaman Islands and also from the 
Maldives and Minikoi, but I doubt the latter identification at least, for at Green Island 
and Mer the color of this species was indistinguishable from that of pauciforis, 7.e., light 
(convexities) and dark (low places), buff or fawn, while Bell says the specimens he had 
were either brown or blue. Blue is certainly an extraordinary color for a Nardoa and I 
do not believe the same species is both blue and brown. The specimen in the Amsterdam 
Museum from New Ireland, called variolata by Sluiter, is probably novecaledonie. One of 
our specimens from Mindoro is perfectly tetramerous and has remarkably long, terete, 
attenuate rays, for R=115 mm., and r=only 12, and br only 15. The abactinal plates of 
this specimen are not typical, the contrast between the terminal and basal portions of the 
rays being very poorly marked. 
At Mer and Green Island, this species occurs with pauciforis and was supposed to 
be only a form of that species, but the difference is so constant that it seems best to con- 
sider it specific. As stated on page 50, it is certainly not a sex difference. At Port Galera, 
Mindoro, the specimen of novecaledonie was taken with tuberculata, and the resemblance 
of the two species in color is notable. 
Nardoa mollis. 
Nardoa mollis de Loriol. 1891. Mem. Soc. Phys. Hist. Nat. Genéve, Suppl. vol., No. 8, p. 26, pl. iii (xii), figs. 4-4f. 
Nardoa Le Monnieri Koehler. 1910. Indian Mus. Ast., p. 161, pl. xviii, figs. 1, 2. 
Nardoa bellone Koehler. 1910. Indian Mus. Ast., p. 164. 
I would not feel sure of the identity of mollis and lemonnieri were it not for the series 
of specimens collected at Mer; one of these agrees so closely with the description and figure 
of mollis that I am sure it is that species, while another answers equally well to Koehler’s 
account of lemonniert. Koehler compares his species with novecaledonie and with a myth- 
