RECENT OPHIURANS. 225 



466. A. CORRECTA Koehler, 1907. Bull, sci., 41, p. 300, pi. 12, f. 30, 31. 



1 COTYPE. Loc? Quoy and Gaimard coll. 



467. A. DILATATA Liiian, 1879. Bull. M. C. Z., 6, p. 26, pi. 11, t. 314-316. 



3 coTYPES. Cape op Good Hope, 98 fms. 



468. A. DIOMEDEAE Lutken and Mortensen, 1899. Mem. M. C. Z., 23, p. 151, pi. 12, t. 1-7. 



28 specimens, including 9 cotypes. Gulf of Panama, 1020 fms. Cali- 

 fornia: southwest of Santa Cruz Island, 640 fms. Japan: Suruga Gulf, 148-332 

 fms. ; off eastern coast, 400-749 fms. 



469. A. EUGENIAE Ljtjngman, 1867. Ofv. Kongl. vet.-akad. Forh., 23, p. 318. Plate 4, f. 9, 10.' 



5 specimens. Off northeastern and eastern Patagonia, 30-55 fms. 



470. A. EUOPLA H. L. Clark, 1911. BuU. 75 U. S. N. M., p. 144, f. 57. 



4 PARATYPES. Off eastern Japan, 45-60 fms. 



471. a. FILIFORMIS (0. F. Muller). 



Asterias JUiformis 0. F. Muller, 1776. Prod. zool. Dan., p. 235. 



Amphiura JUiformis Forbes, 1843. Trans. Linn, soc, 19, p. 151. Lutblen, 1858. Add. ad hist. 

 Oph., pt. 1, pi. 2, f. 11a, lib. 



16 specimens. Norway. Sweden: Bohuslan. : 



472. A. GONIODES, sp. nov. (-ymwiSiis, angular). Plate 4, f. 7, 8. 



Disk 4 mm. in diameter; arms 22 mm. long. Very similar to A. angularis 

 (hence the name) but distinguishable by the smaller and sharper arm-spines 

 and the much smaller oral papillae, especially the subdental pair. In angularis 

 the arm-spines are rather thick and blunt and the oral papillae, particularly the 

 subdental pair, are noticeably large. These details are weU-shown in Lyman's 

 Challenger Report, pi. 29, f. 1-3. 



Holotype (M. C. Z. 1369) and 1 paratype (M. C. Z. 1370). Off Bar- 

 bados, 399 fms., Blake St. 288. Off Martinique, 476 fms., Blake St. 204. 



These two specimens are hsted by Lyman in the Blake Report (p. 253) 

 as Amphiura angularis but on the labels the name is followed by a question mark 

 and the holotype is accompanied by this note: "Seems not to be diiferent from 

 angularis except radial shields a httle closer and disk scales less marked. Has 

 stouter arm spines, and coarser disk scales and smaller radial shields than A. 

 semiermis." I do not think the differences in the disk-scahng would justify 

 separating these specimens from angularis, but the differences in the oral papillae 



