184 THE ECHINODERMS OF TORRES STRAIT. 
anax only 1 like Holothuria; but even if that prove to be the case, I should not consider 
it ground for generic separation. The other point which I must leave for future investi- 
gators to determine is the normal number of tentacles. It is probable, of course, that there 
are 20, but I have not found that number indisputably present in even one specimen, and 
in the available material the number present is apparently only 16 to 18, and in one case 19. 
In regard to the name of the genus, a word of explanation is necessary, as I expected 
to use Jaeger’s (1833) name Trepang, in spite of its objectionable un-Latinized form. But 
Jaeger includes in the genus four species, edulis, ananas, impatiens, and peruviana, and 
says, after remarking that the genus is dubious anyway, that ananas is probably a true 
Holothuria, while impatiens and peruviana might perhaps be known as Synaptas. Hence 
edulis must be recognized as the type of Trepang, as it is the only species indubitably 
referred to the genus by the original author thereof. Brandt (1835) undertook to classify 
holothurians in far more numerous genera, subgenera, and sections than knowledge of the 
group at that time warranted and with not very happy results. But many of his proposed 
names will have to be used, and we shall be fortunate if all prove to be as appropriate and 
satisfactory as T'helenota. 
Besides the two species here included in the genus, Selenka’s species Miilleria formosa 
very possibly belongs in Thelenota. As Mitsukuri (1912) has pointed out, were it not for 
the presence of anal teeth, one would not hesitate to identify formosa with ananas, but 
Selenka particularly mentions them, saying they have the upper surface granulated. It 
should be noted, too, that Selenka says rib-like, curved supporting rods occur in all the 
pedicels, whereas there are no supporting rods in the pedicels of either ananas or anaz. 
Finally, it may be mentioned that Selenka’s figure of a forked rod of M. formosa (1867, 
pl. xvii, fig. 19b) is not exactly like the rods of either ananas or anax, but is more like those 
of the latter. Under the circumstances it seems to me we must retain formosa as a valid 
species, characterized especially by the presence of anal teeth and supporting rods in the 
pedicels, until the type in the Museum Godeffroy is re-examined and Selenka is shown to 
be wrong, or until young individuals of ananas are shown to have, at least sometimes, anal 
teeth and supporting rods. 
Thelenota ananas. 
Trepang ananas Jaeger. 1833. De Hol., p. 24, pl. 3, fig. 1. 
Holothuria (Thelenota) ananas Brandt. 1835. Prod. Deser. Anim., p. 253. 
Stichopus ananas Semper. 1868. Holothurien, p. 75.—Sluiter. 1901. Siboga Holos., p. 30, pl. ii, fig. 1.— 
Mitsukuri. 1912. Act. Holos., p. 150, text-fig. 25. 
(Plate 18, Figure 3.) 
This, the largest of holothurians, is not uncommon at the Barrier Reef, 4 miles east 
of Mer, but it is in such demand for béche-de-mer that it is pretty nearly exterminated in 
the shallow water around the islands. All that we saw were in water over a fathom deep 
and could only be gotten by diving for them. The largest specimen I measured was not 
quite 750 mm. long, 115 mm. wide, and about 85 mm. high. Kent (1893) says they grow 
to be “‘three or four feet’ long, and while that is not incredible, accurate measurements of 
such giants would be desirable. When Kent wrote, the béche-de-mer prepared from ananas 
was not in high favor, though it had been, earlier, the most prized of all. In 1913 it was 
regarded as the most valuable of all the Torres Strait varieties, the best quality being 
priced at about 75 cents a pound. It is known to the trade as “prickly red-fish,” 
and is unmistakable not only because of its large size but because the dorsal papillee 
dry up into, and persist as, hard, sharp projections, which are very characteristic. 
The best figure of ananas extant is Kent’s (1893, pl. xxxv, fig. B) photograph, unfortu- 
nately labeled (after Bell’s identification) as Stichopus variegatus, as Sluiter (1901) 
and Mitsukuri (1912) have already pointed out. Sluiter’s colored figure of what is prob- 
ably the smallest known specimen is of great interest. Mitsukuri’s figures of the cal- 
