164 THE ECHINODERMS OF TORRES STRAIT. 
form from Port Philip as Te@niogyrus allani. His excellent photomicrograph of a bit of 
the skin shows that the holothurian is not a Teniogyrus but a Trochodota. In 1914, 
recognizing this fact, Mr. Joshua rejects the former genus altogether, saying that in his 
opinion “‘the genus gua genus never had any real existence, Semper’s language in dealing 
with it conveys little more than the suggestion for a genus.” Obviously Mr. Joshua is 
laboring under two difficulties; first, he had not seen a specimen of true Teniogyrus, and 
second, either he has not seen Semper’s original statement or he fails to appreciate it. 
For Semper (1868, p. 23), after suggesting that perhaps Stimpson’s specimens were im- 
mature, says very clearly that if they were sexually mature (and subsequent material 
proves that they were) the species is not a Chiridota, but is best treated as the type of a 
new genus, T’eniogyrus. As he had no specimens, this was a perfectly legitimate, if not 
altogether commendable, action on his part, and I do not see on what ground one can 
reject the genus, unless he follows Dendy’s extremely conservative course and accepts 
only the genus Chiridota for all Chiridotine with any sort of spicules. Fortunately, Mr. 
Joshua does not take this regrettable position, but recognizes the essential difference 
between species having the sigmoid bodies and those which lack them. In his second 
paper (1914) Joshua discusses T’rochodota allani and describes a notable new T'rochodoat 
which he calls roebucki. Mr. Joshua has been so good as not only to donate to the 
Museum of Comparative Zodélogy alcoholic specimens of both these species, but he has 
also most generously sent us a series of very finely prepared mounts, in balsam, for micro- 
scopical study. It has therefore been very easy to compare his species with each other and 
with the other members of the genus, as well as with two species of Teniogyrus. Both of 
the Victorian Trochodotas are, of course, perfectly valid, as Mr. Joshua’s descriptions 
and figures fully show. 
In view of Dendy’s and Joshua’s papers, I have again gone over all the available 
material of Chiridotine (excepting Chiridota and Polycheira) to see whether a better and 
more natural grouping of the genera than that given in my ‘‘Apodous Holothurians”’ 
(1908) might not be possible, to meet the criticisms of my colleagues. I find, however, 
that I must maintain Teniogyrus, and I can not for a moment allow that Rhabdomolgus 
is one of the Chiridotine, or that R. nove-zealandi@ is a Rhabdomolgus at all. Dendy 
himself considers it a modified Chiridota, while Rhabdomolgus is a specialized synaptid. 
In my opinion, Rhabdomolgus nove-zealandie might be treated as perhaps an Achiridota 
not very nearly allied to Achiridota inermis (Fisher), but there is a serious objection to 
this course. All the evidence indicates that the New Zealand species is derived from 
Trochodota by the loss of (1) the wheels, and (2) the sigmoid bodies, while the Hawaiian 
deep-water species is almost certainly derived from a deep-water Chiridota of the North 
Pacific. Therefore, to place the New Zealand and Hawaiian species in the same genus 
destroys the very purpose of our best systematic work (i7.e., to show genetic relationships), 
and I therefore agree fully with Becher (1909) in placing the New Zealand chiridotid in a 
new genus (Kolostoneura) by itself. Becher has discussed its peculiarities amply, so they 
need not be considered further here. Emphasis may, however, be placed on the fact that 
the new genus bears the same relation to T’rochodota that Achiridota does to Chiridota and 
Anapta to Synapta. 
From Japan have come three papers by Mr. Hiroshi Ohshima which have thrown 
much light on the Japanese species of the genera here under discussion. The first of these 
papers (1913) is unfortunately in Japanese, but there is a brief summary of important 
points in German, a good plate of photomicrographs, and four text figures illustrating the 
calcareous particles of Scoliodota japonica. ‘These figures show at once that Scoliodota is 
a pure synonym of T’rochodota, unless one chooses to doubt whether Ohshima really had 
the same holothurian as von Marenzeller. This seems to me highly improbable, and I 
therefore abandon my genus Scoliodota, which was monotypic when established. 
