218 Mr. Bryce Wright on new Stylasteride. 
XXVI.—On new Stylasteride. 
To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 
GENTLEMEN,—In the current February number of the Ann. 
& Mag. Nat. Hist. I notice that Mr. Quelch (Brit. Mus. Zoo- 
logical Department), in describing some new forms of the 
above group, has criticized a paper of mine published in vol. ix. 
(1882), in which I described. two new forms of Disticho- 
pora; and I crave to be allowed space for a few lines in reply, 
the more so as his remarks are slightly inexact or misleading. 
I did not profess to give a complete list of the Distichopores 
either of the Pacific or any other region, but only so far as 
suited the object [had inview. Ofthe twospecies referred to as 
absent, D. livida, Tenison-W oods, was published in New South 
Wales (1879-80), and D. fragilis, D., I do not know. Does 
Mr. Quelch mean D. gracilis, Dana? 1 do not find either 
species mentioned in the list of “all the species known,” as 
given by Mr. Moseley in the ‘Challenger’ Reports, vol. i. 
(1880 and 1881), so that if I have sinned at all I did so in 
good company. J did not say D. nitida, Verrill, was of a 
whitish tint, but that most of the West-Indian &c. species 
were; and this is correct (see ‘ Pourtalés,” &c.). I find, 
however, on looking at the original references, I have inad- 
vertently transposed the species; but this does not affect the 
question in any way. 
With regard to D. Brasseyi and D. Allnutti, opinions will 
always vary as to the limits and definition of a species ; yet 
it wants but a fair examination of the beautiful and accurately 
coloured lithographic plates of the two forms (reduced to scale) 
and the figure of the life-sized fronds, with a careful reference 
to the description of each, to see that two species, let them be 
called as they may, are sufficiently indicated. Prof. Verrill 
gives no figures, and in a critical examination of a group of 
organisms more or less closely allied a simple diagnosis 
does not always suffice. If it did, having Verrill’s and 
‘Tenison-Wood’s descriptions (and a figure of the latter) of 
their respective species to direct him, why has Mr. Quelch 
appended a query (?) to the names of the examples assigned 
by him to these species in the cases under his charge in the 
British Museum? Having compared the above as now exhi- 
bited with the species described by myself, I see no reason to 
reverse my opinion as to their distinctness. Had I seen Mr. 
Tenison-Wood’s paper and figure earlier I might have hesi- 
tated before describing D. Al/nutti as a new species; but as 
