THE COMATULIDS OF TORRES STRAIT: WITH SPECIAL 
REFERENCE TO THEIR HABITS AND REACTIONS. 
By Huspert LyMan Cuark. 
INTRODUCTION. 
In a paper on Recent crinoids, published a few years since,* our 
present generally acknowledged authority on that difficult group 
hazarded the opinion that “‘crinoids, as a class, are probably the most 
strictly sessile of all marine organisms,’’ and further on he refers to 
them as “‘practically sessile organisms”’ as contrasted with star-fishes, 
brittle-stars, and sea-urchins. My own acquaintance with living 
crinoids was at that time confined to superficial observations on the 
European species of Antedon shown in the aquaria at Port Erin, Isle 
of Man, and at Naples, but I had carried away with me from those 
places the impression that comatulids are quite active animals, good 
swimmers, and anything but “‘sessile.’”’” When, therefore, I found 
myself a member of the party sent by the Carnegie Institution of 
Washington to Torres Strait, I determined, if littoral crinoids proved 
easily obtainable, to devote particular attention to their habits and 
reactions. My desire to do this was increased by the fact that in the 
paper to which I have referred, Mr. Clark makes statements with 
reference to food habits, bathymetrical distribution, size, and color of 
Recent crinoids, which seem to be based on assumptions rather than on 
observations, and from which he draws some far-reaching conclusions. 
It seemed clear that actual observations made on living crinoids, both 
in aquaria and under natural conditions on the reef, could not fail to 
be of interest and value. 
It was fortunate, for the purposes of my investigations, that Dr. 
Mayer determined to establish our laboratory on Maér, the largest of 
the Murray Islands, at the northern end of the Great Barrier Reef, 
for comatulids of many different species and genera occur there and at 
least half a dozen kinds are common near low-water mark. It was 
therefore possible to make many observations from which certain deduc- 
tions seem to be permissible. This report embodies those observations 
and deductions and necessarily includes some criticisms of Mr. A. H. 
Clark’s assumptions. I hope, however, that these criticisms of his 
paper will not appear captious or irrelevant, since they are offered only 
*The Recent Crinoids and their Relation to Sea and Land (Austin Hobart Clark, Geographical 
Journal, London, December 1908, pp. 602-607). This paper, except for its introductory para- 
graphs, is virtually a reprint, under another title, of the paper by the same author, in the American 
Naturalist for November 1908, entitled ‘‘Some Points in the Ecology of Recent Crinoids.” 
99 
