16 BULLETIN 100, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



This reassignment among two very different families is in conform- 

 ity with the view of Matsumoto. But an entirely different classifi- 

 cation has been followed by H. L. Clark in his catalogue. He main- 

 tains the old genus Ophioconis without taking into consideration the 

 divisions proposed by Matsumoto, and he places it bodily, with its 

 thirteen species, in the family Ophiacanthidae. 



H. L. Clark has discarded the genus Ophiolimna. Some of the 

 species he places in the genus Ophiacantha (0. bairdi, O. perfida, 0. 

 operculata, and O. lambda) and the rest in the genus Ophioconis (O. 

 antarctica, O. diastata, and O. papillata). 



The redistribution of the species of the old genus Ophioconis which 

 I have just given differs in several details from that which Matsu- 

 moto has recently proposed ('17, p. 310). The Japanese author 

 leaves in the genus Ophioconis (restricted) not only O. forbesi, but 

 also O. hrevispina, which is very different from it, and, furtherihore, 

 he proposes to unite with the genus Ophioconis the genus Ophiocor- 

 mus described by H. L. Clark. At the same time he is inclined to 

 believe that the genera Ophioconis and Gryptopelta should be re- 

 united, although admitting that they differ in the structure of the 

 arm spines, and he retains in the genus Ophioconis 0. indica, which 

 formerly he considered as an extreme form of Pectinura. 



In concluding I may say that the family Astrophiuridae should 

 be added to the families placed by Matsumoto in the Chilophiurida. 

 In my paper on Astrophiura cavellae I have given the reasons why 

 I believed it necessary to place the genus Astrophiura in a distinct 

 family, and perhaps even in a separate order ('15, p. 15). In his 

 1917 memoir Matsumoto simply places the genus Astrophiura in the 

 subfamily Ophiomastinae with the genera Ophiophysid, Kcehler, 

 Ophiomisidium Kcehler, Ophiotypa Kcehler, and Ophiomastus Ly- 

 man ('17, p. 234). But I still consider that the remarkable pecu- 

 liarities of the genus Astrophiura are sufficient to justify the crea- 

 tion of an independent family. 3 



3 When I described Astrophiura cavellae I noted (p. 2) that this species had been men- 

 tioned by Chun in his book " Aus den Tiefen des Welt-Meeres." But apparently Matsu- 

 moto has assumed that the form recorded by Chun was a different one. In comparing 

 Astrophiura kawamurai with the species previously known he says ('17, p. 245) : " This 

 species differs from Chun's Astrophiura from Agulhas Bank, which is not yet named, 

 ..." and, on the following page, " lately, Kcehler has described A. cavellae from the 

 vicinity of the Cape of Good Hope." It is not correct to say that Chun's species has 

 not yet received a specific name, for it is the one to which I gave the name A. cavellae, 

 and I have stated in my description the exact locality where it was dredged by the 

 Valdivia — latitude 34° 33' S.„ longitude 18° 21' E., the depth being 318 meters. 



