140 Mr. F. J. Bell on the Genus Crossaster. 
XVII.—A Note on the Characters of the Genus Crossaster, 
with the Description of a new Species. By F. JEFFREY 
Bexx, M.A. 
I HAD hoped to accompany the description of the new species 
of Solaster which forms the body of this note by an inves- 
tigation into the distinctive characters of the apparently 
three generic types which have been associated together under 
Forbes’s name Solaster; but I find from a late number 
of the ‘Nyt Magazin’ that the two eminent Norwegian 
naturalists, Messrs. Danielssen and Koren, are about to pub- 
lish some observations on this point. I shall therefore deal 
very briefly with one or two characters of these forms, and 
shall exhibit the respect which I feel for the workers just 
named by deferring to their right of speech. . 
The time has certainly come when greater care must be 
taken in referring species to the genus Solaster. Hiven if we 
allow that Miller and Tyroschel were justified in placing 
S. endeca and S. papposus in the same genus, there can be no 
doubt that Prof. Verrill has done good service to the correct 
estimation of generic differences by establishing the genus ° 
Lophaster * for the S. furcifer of Diiben and Koren; while, 
lastly, there can be no doubt that the S. tumddus of StuxbergT 
is more correctly placed with the genus Asterina, as is now 
proposed by Messrs. Danielssen and Koren in the essay to 
which I have just referred. 
Although Liitken, Sladen, and Agassiz have all entered 
into some discussion of the question, and have all been in- 
clined to separate S. endeca and S. papposus into different 
genera, the absolute characters which distinguish them seem 
never to have been distinctly formulated. The last-named 
writer expresses himself very strongly on the unnatural 
alliance; for he says, ‘ From an examination of the hard 
parts it is evident that Solaster papposus and Solasier endeca 
should not be included in the same genus, having really 
nothing in common except the great number of arms.” 
This remarkable statement has been searchingly dealt with 
by Dr. Viguier §, who undoubtedly has the better position in 
the controversy on the facts called in evidence; but that 
excellent investigator seems to me to have not fully weighed 
* Am. Journ. Se. (8) xvi. p. 216. 
+ (fv. K. Vet. Akad. Férh. Stockholm, 1878 (1879), no. 3, p. 31. 
t{ Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. v. no. 1 (1877), p. 98. 
§ Arch. de Zool. Exp. vii. p. 189. 
