98 
Localities—Off the east coast of Otago, on sand, shell, and gravel, 
18 to 38 fathoms.* [Taylor’s Mistake ; Wellington (F.).] 
Echinaster farquhari, sp. nov. 
Plate VIII, figs. 1-4. 
Station 15. 
A single specimen; in a dried state orange in colour when first 
received, but is now faded. It measures R. 55, r. 13 mm.—thus 
R. > 4 r.; breadth of arm, 17mm. The five arms are blunt at the 
tips, which are upturned ; the base of each is somewhat swollen, so 
that a well-marked interradial furrow traverses the disc for nearly 
half its radius. 
The madreporite, which is situated about midway between the 
centre and margin, is circular, very prominent, projecting above the 
general surface ; is coarsely furrowed, and not surrounded by spines. 
The abactinal skeleton consists of an irregular network of short 
ossicles leaving larger and smaller meshes: the former are often 
partially occupied by small irregular ossicles, which nearly subdivide 
the mesh. On the disc the meshes are smaller, the main ossicles 
being closer together than on the arms. In the larger meshes on 
the latter some 6 or 8 papule occur; on the smaller, only a single 
papula. 
On the abactinal surface of the disc spines are practically absent, 
and are few and widely scattered on the upper surface of the arm. 
Here and there an isolated, short, blunt, apparently immovable spine 
springs from a node in the network; they become relatively more 
numerous, but still few and widely spaced, as the tip of the arm is 
approached. At the sides of the arm, however, they are more de- 
finitely arranged, as also are the ossicles. 
I see no pedicellarize anywhere. 
The ambulacral grooves are very narrow and deep, the podia 
being, of course, in two series; the groove is concealed by adam- 
bulacral spines, which are long enough to reach across it. Each 
adambulacral ossicle carries 4 stout, nearly cylindrical, blunt spines, 
arranged in a transverse row in regard to the groove. The innermost 
is rather shorter than the next, which is the stoutest and longest of 
* During the examination of these specimens I endeavoured to trace the 
starfish which Hutton identified as Uniophora granifera (Trans. N.Z. Inst., 
xi (1878), 306), and which was at that time in the Otago Museum. I failed to 
find any that agrees with Muller and Troschel’s description and figure, and I 
have come to the conclusion that Hutton must have been mistaken in his identi- 
fication ; perhaps he confused it with Stichaster australis, especially as the above 
authors, in a fuotnote (p. 20), state that Uniophora includes species which they 
had formerly placed in that genus. I communicated with Mr. Farquhar asking 
him whether he had ever met with the species; he replied that he had not, and 
that he had likewise come to the conclusion that the genus had been included 
in our list in error. 
