ANNOTATED LIST. 163 
Trochodota maculata! sp. nov. 
(Plate 36, Figures 14 to 21.) 
Length (in alcohol) 26 mm.; diameter scarcely 2mm. Tentacles 10, 1 to 2 mm. long 
(pl. 36, fig. 14), with 4 or 5 digits on each side; digits very slender, with a thin epithelium 
and characteristic calcareous particles. Neither a polian vesicle nor a madreporic canal 
was found. Ciliated funnels (pl. 36, figs. 15, 16) numerous. Calcareous ring of 10 pieces 
(pl. 36, fig. 17) enlarged at base of each tentacle. Calcareous particles in the body-wall of 
two kinds, wheels and sigmoid bodies. Wheels (pl. 36, fig. 18) 0.050 to 0.100 mm. across, 
but mostly 0.070 to 0.080 mm.; inner margin not uniformly serrate, but with relatively 
few teeth in groups. Sigmoid bodies (pl. 36, figs. 19, 20) 0.066 to 0.077 mm. long, chiefly 
in little groups of 5 to 10 forming minute papille, but also scattered singly. Caleareous 
rods of tentacles (pl. 36, fig. 21) about 0.045 mm. long, with branching ends. Color (in 
life) pale pink with numerous minute spots of a darker shade, much as in Leptosynapta 
latipatina; the resemblance is so close the two species are easily confused, until either the 
tentacles or calcareous particles are examined. In its preserved condition T. maculata is 
bright brown, covered with minute papille, each of which is tipped with bright brown-red; 
much brown-red is scattered as pigment-granules, in the skin. 
Holotype, M. C. Z. No. 991; from under a rock-fragment, southeastern reef-flat, 
Mer, Murray Islands, Torres Strait. 
This little holothurian represents a very well-marked species, most nearly allied to 
allani of the southern coast of Australia. Only the single specimen was found at Mer, and 
it is possible that it is immature, as the genital organs are quite inconspicuous. 
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE CHIRIDOTIN. 
Since the publication (January 1908) of my revision of the Apodous Holothurians, 
a number of papers have appeared in which the genera and species of Chiridotine are 
discussed. While much light has been thrown on certain obscure points, some of the 
writing has been at best unconstructive criticism, and it seems desirable to gather together 
here the positive results and summarize our present knowledge of the subfamily. 
A paper on New Zealand holothurians by Dendy and Hindle (1907), a supplementary 
paper by Professor Dendy (1908), and a paper on the holothurians of the subantarctic 
islands of New Zealand (1909) by the same writer have contributed greatly to our knowl- 
edge of the Chiridotine of that part of the world. Unfortunately, however, Professor 
Dendy takes an extremely conservative position, saying: 
“The study of these New Zealand species makes it perfectly clear to my mind that the presence 
or absence of wheels and sigmata, and the arrangement of the wheels (in papill or scattered) can- 
not reasonably be used as the main basis for a generic classification of the subfamily.” 
He accordingly rejects all genera except Chiridota (which he elects to spell Chirodota) 
and Rhabdomolgus, which he insists on putting in the Chiridotine, entirely ignoring the 
characters of the genus and its type-species, with which the New Zealand species he calls 
a Rhabdomolgus has little in common. Of the real Chiridotine, described by Dendy and 
Hindle (1907) or by Dendy alone (1909), gigas is a true Chiridota and adds another species 
to that already perplexing genus, while benhami is clearly a Trochodota as I understand 
that genus, and geminifera seems to represent the group to which I gave the name Scolio- 
dota (1908). These two species will be discussed further in a subsequent paragraph. 
A second writer, Mr. E. C. Joshua, has made some very valuable observations on the 
Chiridotine of the coast of Victoria and South Australia. He described first (1912) a new 
1 Maculatus =spotted, in reference to the coloration. 
