ANNOTATED LIST. 109 
OPHIOTRICHIDFE. 
Ophiothrix belli. 
Déderlein. 1896. Jena. Denkschr., 8, p. 292, pl. xvi, figs. 14, 14a. 
This species is based on a single specimen from Thursday Island, and as it belongs 
to the perplexing longipeda group, its validity is not unquestionable. We found no speci- 
mens to refer to it, and in the vast Szboga collection Koehler found none. 
Ophiothrix demessa. 
Lyman. 1861. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 8, p. 82.—Koehler. 1905. Siboga Oph. litt., pl. ix, figs. 5, 6. 
The discovery of this species at Mer is of no little interest, because it is essentially a 
Pacific species, the Hawaiian Islands being the type locality. It is known also from the 
Society and the Gilbert Islands, and even from the East Indies, for the Siboga found it 
at Obi Major and at the eastern end of Timor. Koehler (1907) reports specimens in the 
Paris Museum from the Red Sea, Madagascar, and the Seychelles. 
It is rare at Mer, only two specimens being found there, and both of these were on 
the southeastern reef-flat under rocks. On December 10, 1913, I found a single specimen 
on the under side of a rock-fragment on the shore reef near Hilo, Hawaii, and my field- 
notes on this individual read: ‘‘Colors in life: disk gray; arms red and white banded, 
transversely; general effect red. Much changed in drying. Supposed to be an amphiuroid 
when taken; habit and habitat most un-Ophiothrix-like.”’ 
Ophiothrix dyscrita. 
H. L. Clark. 1915. Mem. M.C. Z., 26, p. 271, pl. 18, fig. 3. 
Although Bell (in Herdman, 1904, p. 150) considers it little less than a crime to describe 
a new Ophiothrix from only immature specimens, it seemed to me better to give a name to 
the individual on which this species is based than to try to discuss it without any name. 
It certainly is not identical with any species now known, so far as I can see, and in order 
that it may have its proper place in this report a name is desirable if not essential. If, 
when the much-to-be-desired and long-needed revision of Ophiothrix is made, dyscrita 
proves to be a synonym, no harm is done by the temporary use of the name. The holotype 
of dyscrita is a very small individual which was found on the same sponge with the holotype 
of Ophiactis luteomaculata, which was brought up by a Japanese diver from 18 fathoms 
off the northwestern reef at Mer, October 13, 1913. The color in life was pale purple above, 
whitish beneath. The very long, slender arms, ten times the diameter of the disk, attracted 
immediate attention, because they contrasted so markedly with the relatively short arms 
of O. stelligera, occurring on the same sponge. 
Ophiothrix galatez. 
Liitken. 1872. Ov. Kongl. Danske Vid. Selsk. Forh., pp. 90, 108. 
Koehler (1907) lists a specimen of this dubious species as from Thursday Island, 
but he gives no further data. 
Ophiothrix hirsuta. 
Miiller and Troschel. 1842. Syst. Ast., p. 111—Duncan. 1887. Jour. Linn. Soo. Zool., 2/, pl. ix, figs. 18, 
19 (as O. variabilis). 
I seriously question the validity of this species. Certainly no adequate distinction 
between it and longipeda has yet been made, and I doubt if any exists. Further study on 
the reefs of the East Indian region is necessary before we can decide whether longipeda 
is a protean species, different forms of which have received different specific names, or 
whether there really is a group of nearly allied but distinct species of which longipeda is 
