ANNOTATED LIST. 53 
ical “‘bellone,” which is, as already stated, probably mollis. The differences from novecale- 
donie are tangible enough, but those which are supposed to separate lemonnieri from “‘bel- 
lone” are insignificant. New Britain is the only known locality for mollis and the Andaman 
Islands for lemonniert. Fisher (1919) keeps lemonnieri separate from mollis and suggests 
the form of the denuded abactinal plates as a possible distinction. After another examina- 
tion of our series of mollis, I have no faith in the reliability of this character. This is one 
of the finest sea-stars found at Mer, where, however, it occurs only sparingly on the reef- 
flat. The specimens found range from R =65 to R =128 mm.; the last is somewhat larger 
than Koehler’s largest specimen of lemonnieri, but its proportions are the same. In life 
the color is a deep olive-brown and the surface of the animal has a velvety texture, so that 
no confusion with pauciforis or novecaledonie was possible. The color becomes lighter 
in preserved specimens. 
Nardoa obtusa. 
Scytaster obtusus Perrier. 1875. Rev. Stell., Arch. Zool. Exp., 4, p. 169 (433). 
Nardoa obtusa Sladen. 1889. Challenger Ast., p. 412. 
Nothing is known of this species beyond Perrier’s original description. The type is 
in the British Museum and came from the Philippine Islands. The rays are much shorter 
than in other members of the genus, but I think this may prove to be only an extreme 
individual divergence. A specimen of pauciforis which I found at Mer has R=63 and 
r=11(R=5.7r) and the rays are very blunt and scarcely taper at all. The actinolateral 
plates and the adambulacral armature in this specimen are like other examples of pauciforis 
and not at all as in obtusa. Fisher (1919) gives some additional data about this species, 
the type of which he saw at the British Museum. It is a small specimen with R =35 mm. 
and r=8mm. The plates which Perrier calls ‘‘légérement ”’ larger and more protruding, 
must be rather decidedly so, as Fisher suggests (p. 385) that the specimen may be “‘a 
young tuberculata with the tubercles a little more prominent than usual,” or it may be (p. 
387) a young tumulosa. One would not suppose from Perrier’s description that the affinities 
were with that section of the genus. 
Nardoa galathez. 
Scytaster galathee Liitken. 1864. Vid. Med., p. 167. 
Nardoa galathee Sladen. 1889. Challenger Ast., p. 412. 
Although Liitken suggests that this species is most nearly allied to semiregularis, 
his diagnosis shows that the form of the rays and the character of the abactinal skeleton 
indicate its position is in Nardoa as here restricted. The adambulacral armature is, how- 
ever, unique in the genus and should make the recognition of the species easy but it does 
not seem to have been met with since originally described, unless the locality ‘“‘Togean 
Island” given by Sladen (1889, Challenger Ast., p. 788) is to be so construed. The type- 
locality is ‘‘Nikobar,’’ while Togean Island is in the Gulf of Tomini, Celebes. I have been 
unable to find any record of echinoderms from that island and Sladen gives no authority. 
Liitken gives the diameter of galathee as 5 inches, which would rank it among the smaller 
species of the genus. 
Nardoa rosea! sp. nov. 
(Plate 10, Figure 1; Plate 29, Figures 1 and 2.) 
R=70 mm.; r=12 mm. in life, 10 mm. in the dried specimen; br =11 mm., R =6 to 
7 r. Disk small, slightly elevated; interbrachial arcs acute. Rays terete, only slightly 
tapering in life, more so in preserved material. Abactinal skeleton made up of plates, 
very diverse in size and shape, 1 to 2.5 mm. in diameter, more or less convex or swollen, 
the convexity increasing with size; neither on disk nor rays is there anyregularity of arrange- 
1 Roseus =rosy-red, in reference to the color. 
