ANNOTATED LIST. 89 
Tamaria fusca. 
Tamaria fusca Gray. 1840. Ann Mag. Nat. Hist., 6, p. 283. 
Ophidiaster fuscus Perrier. 1875. Rev. Stell., Arch. Zool. Exp., 4, p. 132 (396). 
Linckia megaloplaz Bell. 1884. Alert Ech., p. 126. 
Ophidiaster hirsutus Koehler. 1910. Indian Mus. Ast., p. 149, pl. xviii, figs. 5, 6. 
Ophidiaster ornatus Koehler, 1910. Indian Mus. Ast., p. 151, pl. xviii, figs. 3, 4. 
(Plate 28, figures 1, 2.) 
This small species is one of the most variable in the family and, as material is still 
very scanty in our museums, it is possible that the above synonymy is not correct. Perrier’s 
description is based on Gray’s own specimen and is sufficiently detailed to make up for 
Gray’s brevity. My reason for including Bell’s Alert species here is that two specimens 
from Holothuria Bank, identified and labeled by Bell himself, are in the Museum of Com- 
parative Zodlogy collection; these specimens have been examined by Dr. W. K. Fisher 
and he writes me as follows regarding them: 
“Tinckia megaloplax Bell. This is Gray’s Tamaria fusca=Ophidiaster fuscus. Koehler’s 0. 
hirsutus is but a variety. It is a very variable species, as my specimens show. The one I figure! 
has a heap of small tuberculate granules on the abactinal plates. I saw the type in the British 
Museum and it is distinctly of this type.” 
One of the Holothuria Bank specimens before me is obviously very young (R =22 
mm.) and the marginal spines are confined to the distal superomarginals though present 
on all but the basal 3 or 4 inferomarginals. On only a few distal, abactinal plates is the 
central granule sufficiently enlarged to be evident as a spiniform tubercle, and it is never 
noticeable. This specimen resembles very closely Koehler’s unique holotype of Ophidiaster 
ornatus but is a little larger and on only a few adambulacral plates are there 2 subambu- 
lacral spines distinctly evident. The type of ornatus is obviously a very immature indi- 
vidual and might be the young of any one of several species of J’amaria; if it is not fusca, 
it is probably marmorata. 
The larger specimen from Holothuria Bank has R =44 mm. and is notable for the 
presence of large pointed tubercles not only on the marginals, but on many abactinal plates 
as well. It is thus similar to the unique holotype of Ophidiaster hirsutus Koehler, but being 
somewhat larger it has more tubercles developed on the abactinal surface. There is no 
doubt, I think, that this specimen of Bell’s megaloplaz is identical with Koehler’s hirsutus 
and I see no reason to question Fisher’s opinion as expressed above, that both are in reality 
Tamaria fusca Gray. 
A third specimen in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy is one of the Gazelle speci- 
mens from northwestern Australia, identified by Studer as Ophidiaster fuscus. The Gazelle 
took 3 specimens near the Dampier Archipelago in 50 fathoms, the largest having R =22 
mm. The one now in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy, received in exchange from 
Berlin in 1908, has R about 21 mm. It differs from Studer’s description in three particu- 
lars; pedicellariz are present, at least on abactinal surface; there is no trace of actinal pap- 
ule and the color is pure white. These differences are not difficult to understand, for the 
long sojourn in alcohol has bleached out all the original color while the present dry condition 
brings out the pedicellarize which might be quite overlooked in the alcoholic specimen. As 
for the actinal papule, it seems to me possible Studer was mistaken as to the nature of 
the bodies he so designated. 
The largest specimen of fusca recorded is the type with R =about 36 mm., but Bell 
says his largest megaloplax had R=67 mm. Unfortunately it is not improbable that more 
than one species of ophidiasterid is included by Bell under his original description, which 
in certain particulars applies poorly to fusca. This uncertainty as to the forms included 
under the original description of megaloplax enters into the matter of the geographical 
1 W. K. Fisher, 1919. Bull. 100 U. S. Nat. Mus., pl. 103, fig. 4; pl. 104, fig. 1; pl. 111, figs. 5, 6. 
7 
