SHALLOW- WATER STARFISHES 211 



This genus differs from Echinaster in the absence of thick external 

 integument; in the covering of minute spinules; and in the nearly 

 uniform small ossicles of the dorsal and lateral skeleton, the con- 

 nective ossicles being almost indistinguishable from the primary 

 series. There are no large mammillate, spiniferous ossicles, nor any 

 intermediate naked ones, above or below. The papular areas are 

 much smaller and the papulae stand singly or in small groups. 



In the species that I have studied there is but one well developed 

 row of interactinal plates, sometimes as large as the inferomarginals 

 proximally, though generally much smaller, and often bearing finer 

 spines. This row of peractinals may extend merely to the middle of 

 the ray, but it often disappears only close to the tip. Its ossicles are 

 closely joined to the outer side of the adambulacrals, which they 

 about equal in length, and consequently in number, but in some 

 species there are intervening papulae. In some cases a second short 

 row of synactinals is developed proximally, in large adult specimens. 

 The adambulacral plates are transversely oblong. 



According to the accepted rules of priority it seems necessary 

 to adopt Henricia instead of Cribrella as the name of this genus. 



The generic name Cribrella was proposed tentatively by Agassiz 

 (op. cit., p. 191, 1835), as a substitute for Linckia Nardo (Isis, 

 1834), evidently because the latter had been previously used in 

 botany. Agassiz did not then actually use it as the name of the 

 genus, but retained Linckia. The species that he cited were 

 L. variolata N., L. typns N., and L. franciscus N. These belong to 

 the Ophidiasteridae, and to Linckia as now restricted. Therefore the 

 generic name, Cribrella, if used at all, must be considered as dating 

 only from Forbes, who published it in 1841' (or December, 1840, at 

 the earliest), spelling it " Cribella" evidently by a typographical 

 error, and applied it wrongly to the present genus. 



J. E. Gray, however, as shown by Bell, 1 had published a valid name, 

 Henricia, for the genus at a slightly earlier date. (Op. cit., Novem- 

 ber, 1840.) 



Therefore, if the monthly part of Forbes's work, including Cri- 

 bella, was published December i, 1840, as Bell states, the name Hen- 

 ricia evidently has one month of priority and should be adopted. 

 His work, as a whole, is dated 1841. 



'Op. cit., vi, p. 473, 1890. Bell there states, on the authority of the pub- 

 lishers, that Forbes's "British Starfishes" was published in six monthly 

 numbers, from October, 1840, to March, 1841. 



