644 PROF. F. J. BELL ON THE GENUS PsoLus. ([Nov. 14 
and which will, I trust, be found to contain an exact account of all 
the facts necessary for forming a judgment on the name to be 
applied to this generic division, I pass to an enumeration, first, of the 
forms supposed to be specifically distinct, and, secondly, of the specitic 
names given to forms already described. 
I. List of the Species regarded as distinct. 
1. antarcticus, Philippi, Arch. Nat. 1857, p. 133. [B.M.] 
2. appendiculatus, de Blainv. Dict. Sc. Nat. xxi. p. 317. 
3. boholensis, Semper, Holoth. p. 62. 
4. cataphractus, Sel. Zeitsch. wiss. Zool. xviii. p. 110. 
5. complanatus, Semper, Holoth. p. 61. 
6. ephippifer, Wyv. Thomson, Journ. Linn. Soe. xiii. p. 61. 
7. fabricii, Diiben & Koren, Higr. Kgl. Svensk. Akad. xxxii. 
p- 316 (note). [B.M.] 
8. operculatus, Pourtalés, Bull. M. C. Z. i. p. 127. 
9. phantapus, Strussenfeldt, Abh. schwed. Ak. xxvil. p. 268. 
[B.M.] 
10. poriferus, Studer, M.B. Ak. Berl. 1876, p. 452. 
11. regalis, Verrill, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H. x. p. 357. [B.M.] 
12. squamatus, Koren, Nyt Mag. iv. p. 211. [B.M.] 
Synonymous terms. 
1. granulatus, Ayres (Bost. Soc. N. H. iv. p. 63)=regalis’, V1. 
2. levigatus, Ayres (Bost. Soc. N. H. iv. 25)=phantapus’. 
3. sitchaensis, Brdt. (Prod. p. 47)=fabricii’. 
[4. Psolus forbesi (Ann. N. H. (1) xv. p. 174) has no more 
existence than such as is based on the sentence of Couch (Cornish 
Fauna, pt. ii. p. 73), “one closely allied to the genus Psolus of Mr. 
Forbes.”’ | 
PsoLus FABRICII. 
The most important fact with regard to this species that a survey 
of the British-Museum collection brings to light is an extension of 
its geographical distribution, which can hardly be said to be un- 
expected. Among the collections made by Captain H. C.St. John, 
R.N., in the Japanese seas (presented to the Trustees by Dr. J. Gwyn 
Jeffreys) are some small specimens which cannot, I think, be referred 
to any other than this species ; for though they present an imbrication 
of the scales which is remarkable when compared with the extent of 
that imbrication in two large specimens from the coast of Greenland, 
it is not so remarkable when we take into consideration the example, 
intermediate in size between these two sets, which was collected off 
Greenland by H.M.S. ‘ Valorous’ (and figured by Messrs. Duncan 
and Sladen in their ‘ Arctic Echinodermata,’ pl.i.). Further, itis to 
1 The Psolus granulatus of Grube (Actin. &c. d. Adriat. u. Mittelmeers, 1840, 
p- 38) does not belong to this genus, but to Hemicrepis, J. Miller. 
2 See Stimpson, Iny. Gd. Man. p. 16 (1853, and not 1854 as given by Sel., 
and Verrill, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H. xii. p. 353). 
° See H. Ludwig, Zeitsch. f. wiss, Zool. xxxy. p. 588. 
