CLARK : THE STARFISHES OF THE GENUS HELIASTER. 53 



some zoologists to make use of a subspecific name, while others might not con- 

 sider the differences sufficiently great and constant to warrant any attempt to 

 distinguish the two forms by name. All-hough the large series of specimens 

 before me, 101 in all, have made it possible to compare the two forms very care- 

 fully, the only apparent connecting links I have seen are from the Galapagos. 

 None of the 53 Peruvian specimens show any intermediate characters or offer 

 any difficulty in assigning them to the mainland form. Of the 48 Galapagian 

 specimens, those (0) in the collection of the Leland Stanford Junior University 

 are all unmistakably cumingii, and the same is true of five of those in the collection 

 of I he Museum of Comparative Zoology. There are two young ones, however, in 

 the latter collection, one 41 mm. in diameter, the other about 80, which are less 

 easily determined. The former is of course too young to show any specific 

 characters clearly, while the larger one has the abactinal spines coarser and more 

 nearly capitate than in most Galapagian specimens. However, as Rathbun (1887) 

 has pointed out, the young quite commonly have more capitate spines than the 

 adults. Of the 38 specimens of Heliaster, supposedly from the Galapagos Islands, 

 sent me from the National Museum, two are evidently multiradiatus (as already 

 mentioned) and 17 are typical cumingii, while four others are too young to show 

 specific characters. Of the remainder, nine are evidently cumingii, but resemble 

 the Peruvian species in the conspicuously capitate spines, especially along the 

 margins of the rays. The other six specimens demand a special word for each. 



1 and 2. Under No. 21947 are two specimens, one of which seems to be a young 

 helianthus and has been referred to under that species. The other is similarly 

 labelled from an unknown locality, but is much larger, 150 mm. in diameter. It 

 is apparently cumingii, though the spines on the abactinal surface of the rays arc 

 decidedly capitate. It probably came from the Galapagos. 



3. Under No. 15523 is a young individual, about 72 mm. in diameter, labelled 

 " Heliaster cumingii Gray. Chatham Island, Galapagos. Dr. W. II. Jones, 

 U. S. N." It seems to be correctly identified, but the rays are free for an 

 unusual proportion (35 per cent) of their length, giving the specimen a peculiar 

 appearance, somewhat like helianthus. 



4. No. 15524 is a large specimen, about 145 mm. in diameter, labelled "Chat- 

 ham Island, Galapagos," and bears a striking resemblance to microbrachius. It 

 has been so well and fully described by Rathbun (1887) that no description need 

 be given here. This individual represents the extreme development of the peculiar 

 characters of cumingii, except that the abactinal spines are unusually numerous. 



5 and 6. Under 21948 are two specimens, about 145 mm. in diameter, con- 

 cerning which we have only the information that they were collected by the 

 "Albatross" in 1888, "Loc ?'" One of them is very similar to the Peruvian 

 form, as the abactinal spines are very numerous, while the other, although simi- 

 lar, is more like Galapagian specimens. If these individuals are from the Gala- 

 pagos Islauds, they are apparently connecting links with the mainland form. 



The young of cumingii not only have the free portion of the rays relatively 

 longer than in the adult, but the abactinal spines are lower, stouter, and more 

 capitate. Specimens under 75 mm. in diameter do not show the specific char- 



