92 THE ECHINODERMS OF TORRES STRAIT. 
taken in Florida Strait has satisfied me that Tamaria floride was taken by the Bibb in 1868, 
either on May 9, off the Samboes, or on May 11, off Sand Key; each of these stations was 
at 123 fathoms. Verrill (1915, pp. 90, 91) gives the lesser radius of the type as 5 mm. 
instead of 9, evidently misreading the perplexing 5 in Perrier’s final report, already men- 
tioned. But worse than this, Verrill makes the amazing remark regarding the holotype: 
“Tt is perhaps the young of O. guildingii, the common shallow-water West Indian species.” 
It would be difficult to make a guess about the specimen that would be much further from 
the mark! There is a superficial appearance in form to Hacelia superba, but even a casual 
examination prevents any confusion with that species. Verrill records (1915, p. 91) a 
specimen from off eastern Florida, 277 fathoms, Albatross collection, but in view of the 
great depth and the above-quoted remark I think perhaps this specimen may not be 
Tamaria floride. At any rate it is unfortunate that Verrill gives no data whatever regarding 
this supposedly second example of this remarkable species. 
Tamaria pusilla. 
Ophidiaster pusillus Miller and Troschel. 1844. Arch. f. Naturg., 10, pt. 1, p. 180. 
This species, recorded from the Philippine Islands, Dutch East Indies, and New 
Caledonia, I have never seen. Ives’s (1889, p. 172) record from Oahu, Hawaiian Islands, 
is probably based either on O. lorioli, as suggested by Fisher, or even on O. squameus. 
It is apparently a small species, with R only 30 to 35 mm. long. Perrier (1875, p. 128 [892]) 
is certainly in error in making O. granifer Liitken a synonym of pusilla, for Liitken’s species 
has 8 series of papular areas and is hence a true Ophidiaster. 
Tamaria scleroderma. 
Gerais aati Fisher. 1906. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. for 1903, p. 1081, pl. xxx, figs. 4, 4a; pl. xxxi, 
gs. 2, 2a. 
This fine species, orange-yellow and maroon in life, is known only from the two speci- 
mens taken by the Albatross in 99 to 106 fathoms off the north coast of Maui, Hawaiian 
Islands. 
Tamaria marmorata. 
Ophidiaster marmorata Michelin. 1844. Rey. Zool., 7 p. 173.—1845. Mag. Zool., 7, p. 193 (21); pl. x, figs. a-f. 
Linckia marmorata von Martens. 1869. Von Decken’s Reise, p. 180.—De Loriol. 1885. Mem. Soc. Phys. 
Hist. Nat. Genéve, 29, No. 4, p. 35; pl. xiii, figs. 1-le. 
Few members of the family have been so needlessly shifted about as has this handsome 
sea-star. Owing to the very small size of the holotype and to some probable misidentifica- 
tions, the status of marmorata is at the present time quite uncertain, but that it is not a 
Linckia seems to me beyond question. The trouble began with von Martens’ transfer 
of the species to Linckia, which it is fair to believe he would never have made had he 
recognized the genus Ophidiaster at all. Liitken (1871) seems to have overlooked mar- 
morata altogether, while Perrier (1875), admitting some embarrassment in so doing, decided 
to leave it in Linckia. Later writers have followed that lead and hence the real relation- 
ships of the species have been obscured and the natural limits of Linckia could not be 
drawn while it remained therein. In the Alert Report (1884, p. 125) Bell discusses a series 
of diversified ophidiasterids from tropical Australia under the heading ‘‘ Linckia marmorata”’ 
which he says “‘are clearly enough all representatives of the same species.” I am inclined 
to doubt whether these do all represent one species, but in any case those from Prince of 
Wales Channel are pretty sure to prove to be Tamaria tubifera. It is very unlikely that any 
are the real marmorata. This identification of Australian material by Bell as Linckia 
marmorata proved a stumbling block to Simpson and Rudmose-Brown, whose account 
(1910, p. 56-60) of certain sea-stars from the coast of Portuguese East Africa contains 
some most unfortunate blunders. Their figures are fortunately clear and apparently 
