ANNOTATED LIST. 93 
accurate, but they do not represent marmorata! I should not be so sure of my ground 
were it not for the material before me in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy collection. 
This includes a specimen from Zanzibar with R =31 mm. identified by Perrier; a very fine 
specimen from Mauritius with R =52 mm. received from the British Museum and identified 
(or at least labeled) by Bell; and two very large specimens from Zanzibar, with R =58 
and R =70 mm. respectively, which were taken by C. Cooke and have been in the Museum 
of Comparative Zoélogy collection for many years. This material agrees well with de 
Loriol’s notes and figures (J. c.) and the Mauritius specimen shows exactly the coloration 
which he describes. Michelin’s colored figure differs only in being lighter and brighter. 
It is very unfortunate that Simpson and Rudmose-Brown seem to have overlooked de 
Loriol’s paper. Had they examined his figures they would have avoided some unnecessary 
blunders. It is certain that they have at least two species included in their Linckia mar- 
morata, and perhaps there are three. At any rate, one does not need to have more than an 
elementary knowledge of sea-stars to realize that their figures 2 and 3 can not represent the 
same species! Moreover, their description of the adambulacral armature and their figure 
3 are certainly not made from any known species of Linckia, Ophidiaster, Hacelia, or 
Tamaria, nor can I guess what sea-star they might represent. It is possible that figures 
1, 2, and 4 represent some form of marmorata, but none of the specimens I have seen is like 
them. On the other hand, they are (as suggested above) very much like 7. lithosora, and 
I think may possibly represent that species. In Simpson and Rudmose-Brown’s description 
are some odd statements which certainly do not apply to marmorata. Thus, they say of 
the skeletal plates that there are only 4 series—‘‘one mid-dorsal series; 2 sub-lateral series; 
1 very broad sub-ventral series.’”” No doubt, however, they mean 2 sublateral and 1 sub- 
ventral series on each side. Even then, however, they distinguish only 7 series, whereas 
my smallest specimen shows 9 (besides the adambulacrals), while the finely preserved 
specimen from Mauritius has undoubtedly 13 on the basal part of each ray. Of course, the 
explanation is simple; the granulation is so close that the English authors have considered 
the inferomarginals and the 1 to 3 series of actinolaterals as a single broad ‘‘subventral’”’ 
series, and have entirely overlooked the real skeletal arrangement. In regard to the 
papular areas, they assert that they are larger than the corresponding plates and that 
“the average number of pores in each group is about fifteen.”’ Their figure 1 contradicts 
these statements, the average number of pores shown being fewer than 8 to each area, 
and the areas certainly not averaging as large as the plates. But this is not strange, for the 
figure represents the distal part of the ray. However, in the largest specimens of marmorata, 
I have not found a single area with as many as 15 papule and the average is about 10; 
rarely is an area as large as one of the adjoining plates. In the typical marmorata from 
Mauritius the areas are not half as large as the plates and there are rarely more than 8 
pores. As already stated, the English authors’ description of the adambulacral armature 
is impossible, but just how it is to be accounted for I do not see, as their figure 2 is an 
admirable representation of the adambulacral appearance of a T’amaria. The description 
of the coloration indicates some other sea-star than marmorata, especially if made from fresh 
or perfectly preserved material, a point not even mentioned. 
The specimens in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy collection need little comment. 
The fine specimen from Mauritius has moderately slender and terete rays, which at middle 
are only about 1/10R in width. The large Zanzibar specimens are stouter and have the 
rays more cylindrical, with the breadth at middle about 1/7 R. As already mentioned, the 
Zanzibar specimens have much larger papular areas, with more numerous pores. Their 
color is now dingy gray, but there are distinct indications of irregular darker and apparently 
once deep purple markings on the rays. In the Mauritius specimen the actinolateral plates 
are unusually well-defined, and more remarkable still, there are papule below the infero- 
marginals; these papule are insignificant and scattered, except on the ray opposite the 
