DENDRASTER. 69 



specimens, the shade depending largely on how much the primary spines are 

 tinged; where they are nearly white the general coloration is very light, almost 

 lavendar, but where they are distinctly purplish, the general effect is of course 

 much darker. 



The only specimens of this species taken by the Albatross were at 

 Station 3781. Off Cape Nalacheff, Kamtchatka. 39-42 fms. Gy. s., g. 

 Five specimens. 



Echinarachnius mirabilis. 



Scaphechinus mirabilis A. Agassiz, 1863. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, p. 359. 

 Echinarachnius mirabilis A. Agassiz, 1872. Rev. Ech. pt. 1, p. 107. 



Echinarachnius pacificus Pfeffen, 1881. Verh. Naturw. Ver. Hamburg-Ait ona im 1880, p. 65. 

 Echinarachnius tenuis Yoshiwara, 1898. Ann. Zool. Jap., 2, p. 61. 



Plate 125, fig. 6. 



The deep violet color, added to the very characteristic branching of the 

 actinal ambulacral furrows, serve to make this species very easy to recognize, 

 yet both Pfeffer and Yoshiwara have described mirabilis under other names. 

 In the case of Yoshiwara however, there is considerable excuse, for he had only 

 young specimens and their very delicate, flat tests, almost white in color, are at 

 first glance very different from those of mirabilis. Thanks to Dr. Goto, I have 

 examined Yoshiwara's types and am thus able to state that they are the young 

 of mirabilis. 



The bidentate pedicellariae of this species are noticeably different from 

 those of parma. The valves (PI. 125, fig. 6) have straighter sides and more 

 coarsely dentate tips, while there is also a more or less developed apophysis — 

 not one which can be of much functional importance but still more than is to be 

 found in the valves of parma. 



Although this is one of the characteristic echinoderms of Japan, it was i >t 

 taken by the Albatross on either of her visits. 



Dendraster. 



Agassiz and Desor, 1847. Ann. Sci. Nat., ser. 3, 7, p. 135. 

 Type, Scutella excenlrica Eschscholtz, 1831. Zool. Atlas. 4, p. 19. 



It is, of course, merely a matter of opinion whether the peculiarities of 

 "Scutella excentrica" entitle it to generic separation from Scutella and Echina- 

 rachnius. In my judgment however they do and I have accordingly accepted 



