ANNOTATED LIST. 137 
acquisition, in poor condition, with only the basal portion of the arms, and is catalogued 
as janualis. Both these specimens have the coloration of liitkeni and must be regarded as 
such. This discovery that janualis is not known from the Philippines and that Mer is 
the only definite locality for that species raises some annoying questions. The holotype of 
janualis was collected by Captain Putnam and was supposed to be from Bolivia (Mejil- 
lones). It seems to me sure that it did not come from that country, and I have suggested 
(1915) that it came from Hongkong; but if it came from Hongkong it is more likely to be 
the young of the Philippine species than of the one from Mer. In that case, the name 
liitkeni would become a synonym of janualis and the Murray Island Ophiomastix would 
need a new name. But unfortunately the holotype of janualis is so much smaller than 
any specimens of liitkeni or of the species from Mer available to me, I can not decide to 
which it is nearer (the coloration is very indistinct); and moreover, the doubt about the 
locality always confronts us. I see no better course, therefore, than to continue calling 
the Murray Island form janualis and the species from Ternate, the Philippines, and the 
Riu Kiu Islands, liitkend. 
Ophiomastix caryophyllata. 
Liitken. 1869. Add. ad Hist. Oph., pt. 3, p. 43.—Déderlein. 1896. Jena. Denkschr., 8, pl. xv, figs. 10, 10a. 
(Plate 14, Figure 4; Plate 36, Figure 10.) 
The type locality for this species is the Fiji Islands, but it has been taken several 
times at Amboina, the Siboga took it off the east coast of Borneo and at Saleyer, and 
Koehler (1907) records specimens in the Paris Museum from the Sulu Archipelago and 
New Caledonia. At Mer it was quite common in the dead portions of coral colonies 
on the southeastern reef-flat. It does not reach a very large size, 19 mm. across the disk 
and arms, about five times as long being the maximum. The disk is quite thickly covered 
with spinules. 
The coloration is very constant in the Murray Island specimens, but it is either more 
variable elsewhere or other species have been confused with caryophyllata, for both Brock 
and Koehler refer to specimens which are very different in color from any caryophyllata 
I have seen. My identification of the specimens from Mer is based on comparison with 
a specimen in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy from Fiji, received from the Godeffroy 
Museum, bearing the name of this species and agreeing well with Liitken’s description. 
Brock (1888) says his specimens from Amboina agreed well with Liitken’s in color, yet 
further on he says the color is ‘‘Goldgelb und Purpur,” whereas Liitken gives the colors 
as dark brown and light brown. Koehler (1905) says that two of the Siboga specimens 
were almost black, a coloration suggestive of liitkeni or janualis. In preserved specimens 
dark brown and light brown, or brownish-white, are the shades, as Liitken says. In life, 
the colors were to my eyes bright brown and silvery gray, but to my artist, Mr. Grosse, 
the brown seemed reddish-purple, as shown in plate 14, figure 4. The bands of light and 
dark color on the arms are of approximately equal width; the dark does not predominate 
as in the figure given. 
In specimens with the disk under 10 mm. in diameter the claviform spines appear to 
be wanting or may just be indicated, but in the full-grown adults they are numerous and 
conspicuous both by size and dark color. 
Ophiomastix corallicola. 
H. L. Clark. 1915. Mem. M. C. Z., 25, p. 294, pl. 16, figs. 1, 2. 
(Plate 14, Figure 3; Plate 36, Figure 11.) 
This is one of the characteristic animals of the southeastern reef-flat at Mer. It occurs 
with other species of Ophiomastix, especially caryophyllata, in the colonies of Porites, 
Pocillopora, Acropora, and Seriatopora, and is rarely found on the sand, either among the 
10 
