ANNOTATED LIST. 73 
Leiaster analogus. 
W. K. Fisher. 1913. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 46, p. 215.—1919. Bull. 100 U.S. Nat. Mus., p. 396, pl. 84, fig. 1; 
pl. 95, fig. 7; pl. 112, fig. 1. 
The Albatross took this sea-star in the Sulu Archipelago, in 9 fathoms on a coral bot- 
tom. Nothing is said of the color, but the size is indicated by R =125 mm. 
Leiaster teres. 
Lepidaster teres Verrill. 1871. Trans. Conn. Acad., 1, p. 578. 
Leiaster teres Sladen. 1889. Challenger Ast., p. 408. 
This species has never been figured and indeed does not seem to have been met with 
since the original description was published. It is the smallest species known (R =47 mm.). 
Nothing is said of the color in life but the dry specimen was pale yellow; that may have 
been, however, after immersion in alcohol or some other preservative. The type was taken 
at La Paz, Lower California. 
Both in the generic diagnosis of Lepidaster and in the description of the species, the 
statement in regard to the papule is so ambiguous that it is impossible to feel sure whether 
those organs are isolated or grouped. Of course if they are isolated, teres is unique among 
Leiasters and probably represents a new genus. 
Leiaster callipeplus. 
W. K. Fisher. 1906. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. for 1903, p. 1083; pl. xxx, figs. 1, 1a; pl. xxxi, fig. 3. 
At four different stations in the Hawaiian Islands, the Albatross met with this inter- 
esting Leiaster, in 32 to 68 fathoms. Although R is only a little greater (52 mm.) than in 
teres, the animal is considerably larger and heavier, owing to the stout, blunt rays. In life 
the striking color is a good character which might perhaps be retained by dry specimens 
but is wholly lost in alcohol. 
Leiaster leachii. 
Ophidiaster leachii Gray. 1840. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 6, p. 284. 
Leiaster glaber Peters. 1852. Monatsb. d. k. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, p. 177. 
Leiaster leachii de Loriol. 1885. Mem. Soc. Phys. Hist. Nat. Genéve, 29, No. 4, p. 40; pl. xiv, figs. 1-2c. 
Although de Loriol earnestly discusses the differences between leachii and coriaceus, 
he makes no reference whatever to glaber, which is odd because he was not ignorant of the 
characters of that species, as he refers to it at the top of p. 40 (op. cit.). And yet I am 
unable to find any reason for doubting that Peter’s single small specimen, on which the 
species glaber is based, was a young example of leachii. Of course, Peters is not to blame 
at all, for Gray’s account of Ophidiaster leachii is characteristically insignificant and it is 
only since de Loriol’s admirable account was published that the species can be said to be 
known. Originally described from Mauritius, leachii is now known also from Amirante, 
the Seychelles and Coetivy Reef. Off Amirante, it was taken at a depth of 25 to 80 fathoms. 
Peters’s type of glaber was from Kwerimba Island, Mozambique. Bell records, with a 
question mark, a young specimen of leachii from Macclesfield Bank; it certainly seems im- 
probable that the species occurs so far to the east. Sluiter (1895) records a specimen in 
the Amsterdam Museum from the Moluccas, but I believe this will prove to be speciosus. 
Large specimens from Mauritius have R=150 mm. or more but in such the diameter of the 
arm is only from 12mm. up. In any case the rays seem to be more slender than in coriaceus. 
The color, in life or dry, is usually deep red, but I am referring to leachii a huge Leiaster 
from Mauritius, belonging to the South African Museum, Cape Town, which is not at all 
red. This specimen has R =255 mm., while the diameter of the ray was probably about 
20 to 22 mm.; it is now dry and quite flat. A few small pedicellarie are scattered on the 
actinal surface of the rays. There are occasionally 3 furrow spines to an adambulacral 
plate, and these spines are frequently furrowed longitudinally near base, as in corvaceus. 
6 
