ANNOTATED LIST. US 
In a list of the different kinds of béche-de-mer exported from Thursday Island, 
given to me by the late Dr. J. R. Tosh, then of Erub, there are, in addition to the 
above 11 names, the following, of which I did not succeed in getting specimens, 
and I therefore have little idea to what species of holothurians they refer: 
Mainland or deep-water black “‘fish’’; White chalky ‘‘fish’’; White speckled ‘‘fish’’; 
Leather ‘‘fish’”’; Waterbag. 
It is of course necessary that any holothurian, to be of use as béche-de-mer, 
must be of considerable size, and the larger the individual is, the more probable 
that it will make a satisfactory preparation. Yet it is true that not all large holo- 
thurians will make béche-de-mer, and in Torres Strait Stichopus chloronotus and 
Holothuria coluber, although large and common, seem to be entirely ignored. Exam- 
ination of a considerable amount of béche-de-mer ready for shipment shows that 
size, hardness, color, presence or absence of projections (“‘prickles”’ and “‘teats’’), 
and the character of the surface, whether rough or smooth, are the commercial 
tests chiefly applied. Naturally these are in a general way correlated with charac- 
ters which serve to distinguish species, but where specific differences are revealed 
only in the calcareous particles of the body-wall, in the arrangement of papille 
and pedicels, in the size, number, or form of tentacles, or in the natural color, it 
is not strange that they are entirely lost in the preparation of the béche-de-mer. 
Hence it is not remarkable that both H. scabra and H. marmorata may become 
“sand fish” in the market. On the other hand, since size, the development of 
tubercles and projections, and the amount of calcareous matter in the body-wall 
increase with age and are also subject to much individual diversity, it is natural 
that some specimens of Actinopyga nobilis are called ‘‘mammy fish” and some 
“teat fish,” or that H. scabra may be either ‘‘sand”’ or “curry fish.” 
W. Saville-Kent, in his remarkable book on the Great Barrier Reef of Australia 
(1893), has given a rather extended account of the béche-de-mer fisheries of tropical 
Australia, and has many illustrations of the holothurians concerned. His identifi- 
cations are based on spirit specimens named for him by Bell at the British Museum. 
This attempt to connect the commercial and scientific names of the species of béche- 
de-mer, through the efforts of two different workers, has not resulted happily, and 
it is important therefore to revise here, in the present connection, the list of holo- 
thurians given by Kent. (See next page.) 
The discrepancies which may be noted between Kent’s account and the data 
secured by me in 1913 are easily explained as the result of changes produced by 
25 years of further exploitation of the fisheries and the lack of accuracy and con- 
sistency among the fishermen and dealers from whom our information was secured. 
There can be little question that the matter of the artificial breeding of the more 
important species of béche-de-mer should be investigated and that the protection 
and development of the fishery in a scientific and systematic way should be taken 
up by the government. A few thousand dollars invested annually for 10 years would 
probably result in a very great increase in the financial returns from the industry and 
in making it a permanent source of income to the country. An export tax of a penny 
a pound or even half that amount, would yield a fund sufficient for the purpose. 
