120 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 



were 0. spinosa, aud de Loriol (1. e.) has confirmed Ljuugman's statement that 

 Liitken's Ophiopeza was therefore not the same as Peters's. Moreover 0. spinosa 

 is the only species in Ophiarachua as used by Ljungniau in 1866 to which the 

 diagnosis of Ophiopezella will apply, and it must therefore be the type of the 

 geuus. The reasons given by de Loriol (1. c.) for considering Liitken's speci- 

 mens from Fiji and his own from Amboiua distinct from Ljungman's appear very 

 trivial, and I have no doubt that they are 0. spinosa. There are, however, two 

 species in the geuus, and they may be distinguished as follows : 



Arm-spines 12-14 ; color brown spinosa 



Arm-spines 9 ; color yellowish-green duhiosa 



Ophiopezella spinosa- 



Ophiarachna spinosa Ljungman, 1867. Ufv. Kongl. Vet.-Ak. Forh., 23, p. 305. 



" Ophiopeza fallax Peters " Liitken, 1869. Add. Hist. Oph., 3, p. 35. 



Pectinura spinosa Lyman, 1874. Bull. M. C. Z., 3, p. 221. 



" Ophiopezella spinosa Ljn." Lyman, 1882. " Challenger" Oph., p. 17. 



Ophiopezella Liitkeni de Loriol, 1893. llev. Suisse de ZooL, 1, p. 392, pi. 13, figs, 



1-1 6. 



Pua, Tonga Islands ; Fiji Islands ; Amboina; Society Islands. Littoral. 



There are three specimens in the M. C Z. collection identified by Lyman, and 

 agreeing well with Ljungman's and Liitken's descriptions. They also agree in all 

 essentials with de Loriol's description aud figures. 



Ophiopezella dubiosa. 



Ophiopezella dubiosa de Loriol, 1894. Mem. Soc. Phys. et Hist. Nat. Geneve, 32, 

 pt. 1, no. 3, p. 7, pi. 23, tigs. 2-2 f. 



Mauritius Littoral. 



Ophiochasma. 



Grube, 1868. 45th Jahres-Bericht d. Schles. Gesell., p. 45. 



Type 0. adspersa Grube, 1. c. (= Ophiarachna stellata Ljn.). Monotypic at the time. 



Synonym: Ophiopinax Bell, 1884. "Alert" Kept , p. 135. Based on Pedinnra 

 stellata Lyman, and consequently having the same type as, and be- 

 ing co-extensive with, Grube's genus. Since Lyman (1874, Bull. 

 M. C. Z., 3, p. 221) had called attention to Grube's proposed genus and 

 shown that its type was identical with 0. stellata, it seems strange 

 that Bell should have considered a new name necessary ; for, though 

 Grube proposed r)phiochasma as a subgenus of Ophiolepis, that does 

 not affect its validity as a generic name (Generic and subgeneric 

 names are . . . from a nomenclatural standpoint ... of the same 

 value. Int. Code, Art. 6). 



Although Lyman regarded this genus as quite superfluous, I agree with Bell 

 that it deserves recognition, for the ditTerentiation of tiie species on which it is 

 based has gone so much further than in its nearest allies that there is a very dis- 

 tinct gap between it and them. 



