410 Miscellaneous. 
But not only had I found our British species to be the same as 
H. catanensis, Grube, but that the Holothurians sent out from the 
Zool. Stat. Naples as “‘Holothuria Poli” are also referable to the 
species we are considering. Is, then, H. Poli= H. catanensis ?—that 
is a question which has exercised me for a long time. Delle 
Chiaje’s figure of H. Poli (Anim. s. Vert. Napoli, pl. vi. fig. 1; re- 
produced in Anim. Invert. Sic. Cit. pl. ex. fig. 1) seems to be a good 
representation of H. catanensis. This species sent out as H. Poli is 
evidently common at Naples, and, if not rightly named, how is it 
that H. Poli has not been found, and how comes it that H. Forskahh, 
of which Delle Chiaje writes ‘‘Ob ejusdem raritatem viscera haud 
examinare potui,” is common at Naples? Am I to conclude that 
Forskahli has become common and Poli disappeared, or are they one 
species? Theel, in the ‘Challenger’? Report on Holothuroidea, 
part 11. 1886, p. 223, is completely puzzled about H. Poli. 
Will Dr. von Marenzeller or some other authority clear up this 
matter by giving us good illustrations of the spicules of the body, 
papille, pedicels, and tentacles of H. Poli? for by their spicula are 
the Holothurians most easily distinguished. 
The question is, who is right as to the identification of H. Poli, 
the Zool. Stat. or certain authors ?—for example, the descriptions of 
Theel just referred to, the figures by Sars of the spicules (Bidr. 
til Kunds. Middelhavets Littoral-Fauna, 1857, figs. 75-77), which he 
called H. tubulosa, but Ludvig and Marenzeller refer to H. Poli, and 
those of Selenka (Beit. z. Anat. u. System. der Holothurien, 1867, 
pl. xvii. figs, 44-46). These figures represent ‘“ buttons” (Theel) ; 
there are no buttons in H. Poli as identified at Naples. I do not 
see why Sars’s figures should not have been drawn from “ buttons ” 
of H. tubulosa (fig. 77 being characteristic) and those of Selenka 
from H. Stellati. Leaving, then, this question of H. Poli as one of 
acknowledged doubt and ignorance on my part, we have 
Holothuria Forskahli, Delle Ch., 1823,= Nigger or Cotton Spinner, 
Peach, 1845,= Holothuria nigra, Gray, 1848,=Cucumaria 
nigra, * Couch,” Kinahan, 1859, = Holothuria catanensis, Grube, 
1864, =Stichopus Selenke, Th. Barrois, 1882,= Holothuria Fors- 
kalii*, Marenzeller, 1893. 
I have specimens in my collection from Polperro, Cornwall 
(Laughrin); Valentia, Lreland (A. J. N., 1870); Plymouth (Marine 
Biol. Lab.) ; Naples (Zool. Stat., as ““H. Poli”); Lesina (Maren- 
zeller, as “H. catanensis”); Fosse de Cap Breton, Bay of Biscay 
(A. M. N., 1880). 
* As regards the spelling of this name, we may choose from H,. Fors- 
kaolti, Chiaje, 1825, H. Forskahli, Chiaje, 1841, H. tubulosa, var. Forskali, 
Lamarck, 1840,=H. Forskalii, Selenka, Ludvig, and Marenzeller. The 
spelling I have adopted is the name as corrected by Chiaje, and is in 
accordance with the rules of nomenclature. 
