262 Th. Mortensen. 



Solaster syrtensis Döderlein. 1900. "OIga"-Echinodermen. p. 210. 

 Taf. VII. Figs. 2—3. 



— — Grieg. Nordl. Norges Echinodermer. p. 24. 



— — Th. Mortensen. 1903. Echinoderms from East- 



Greenland, p. 74. 



— — Michailovskij. 1903. Echinod. Russ. Exped. 



Spitzbergen, p. 69. 



— glacialis Grieg. 1906. "Michael Sars" Asteroidea. p. 67. 



— endeca var. glacialis. К о eh 1er. 1909. Echinodermes. 



Monaco. Pasc. XXXIV. p. 114. PI. V. Figs. 2—3. 



Stat. 94. The Sound at Cap Bismarck, ca. 30 m. 1 specimen, with 

 ten arms. 



While Döderlein has the merit of having shown definitely 

 the distinctness of this species, Grieg has the merit of having 

 cleared up its synonymy, showing it to be the same as the Solaster 

 glacialis of Da nielssen and Ко ren. On the other hand I cannot 

 feel convinced that Grieg is right in regarding the Solaster echinatus 

 Storm as a synonym of S. glacialis. 



Danielssen & Koren (Op. cit.) describe S. glacialis as having 

 the interbrachial spaces of the oral side beset with a few spines 

 placed irregularly (PI. IX. Fig. 2. a.). As the specimen is a small 

 one (R == ca. 25 — 30 mm, according to Grieg), this Avill not be any 

 serious objection to the identification with the '^ Solaster syrtensis" 

 of Döderlein, in which the oral interbrachial spaces bear true 

 paxillæ. In a young specimen of this species from the Kara Sea 

 (R = 16 mm) the oral interbrachial spaces carrj' only a few 

 small groups of spines, 3 — 4 together, resembling very much the 

 condition in the type specimen of glacialis. 



The type specimen of S. echinatus is described as having spines, 

 not paxillæ, in the interbrachial spaces, 2 — 3 together, as shown in 

 the Fig. 6 of Storm's paper (Solaster echinatus n. sp., tilligemed 

 Oversigt over de i Trondhjemsfjorden fundne Ästender. Kgl. Norsk 

 Vidensk. Selsk. 1886—87). But this specimen is not a young one, 

 its arm radius being, according to Grieg, 90 mm. In the specimens 

 of S. glacialis at my disposal I have not seen a similar condition. 

 Accordingly it seems to me not definitely proved that S. echinatus 

 is really a synonym of S. glacialis, so long as this difference has 

 not been removed. 



Whether Solaster syrtensis Y erriU is really identical with S. glacialis, 

 must remain doubtful, until a more detailed description of syrtensis 

 has been given or a direct careful comparison of the two forms has 

 been undertaken. Döderlein, otherwise, has already hinted at 



