1S93.] ODO:^TASTEIl AlfD THE ALLIED GENERA. 261 



3. OdONT ASTER ELOXGATUS. 



Gnathaster elongatus, Sladen, Chall. Rep. Ast. (1889) p. 288. 



4. ODOJiTTASTEIl GBAlf ULOS CIS . 



Asterodon granulosus, Perrier, Miss. Cap Horn (1890), p. K. 132. 

 But for its pedicellarine this species is very close to 0. singu- 

 laris. 



5. OdONT ASTER GRATI. 



CalUderma gi'ccgi, Bell, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 95. 



Pentagonaster pax'dlosus, id. (not Grray) t. c. p. 95. 



Gnathaster gragi, Sladen, Chall. Rep. Ast. (1889) p. 750. 



Asterodon pedicellaris (pars), Perrier, Echinod. Miss. Cap Horn 

 (1891), p. K. 135. 



Asterodon gray i, id. t.c. p. K. 138. 



After a very careful and detailed examination of the descriptions 

 and the specimens at my disposal, I have come to the conclusion 

 that : — 



(1) What in 1881 I called the young of Pentagonaster paxillosus. 

 Gray, is not so, for P. paxillosus has two long (? glassy) spines at 

 each oral angle, while the Magellan specimen has but one. 



(2) P. paxdlosus. Bell (1881), is clearly the same as those speci- 

 mens of Asterodon jiedicellaris Avhich have not the remarkable " pedi- 

 cellarise " said by M. Perrier to be found in some members of that 

 species, with regard to which I should be glad of more detailed 

 examination ; and I give, therefore, the synonymy as above. 



(3) M. Perrier's account of his example of " CalUderma grayi," 

 which is larger than the two small specimens in the British Museum, 

 is sufficient to assure me that we have here to do with one species 

 under three specific and three generic names ! 



(4) A comparison of the original of Mr. Edgar Smith's Penta- 

 gonaster meridionalis with M. Perrier's descriptions shows that 

 there is no reason whatever for regarding it as synonymous A^ith 

 A. pedicellaris. The last-named species appears to me to be 

 divisible into two ; so far as I can form a mental picture of the 

 " pedicellarise " described by Prof. Pei-rier, their presence or absence 

 is a point of sufficient importance to justify specific distinction. 

 AV'ith regard to 0. meridionalis, Mr. Smith is not affected by the 

 complaint of M. Perrier that he " ne signale pas " the remarkable 

 pedicellarise, for they are not present on the specimen \Aliich formed 

 the basis of his description. On the other hand, Mr. Sladen is 

 quite correct in pointing out that there are no pedicellarise on the 

 upper surface of the same specimen. 



6. 0-DONTASTEE HISPIDUS. 



Odontaster Jiispidus, Verrill, Am. J. Sci. xx, (1880) p. 402. 



7. OdONTASTEB MERIDIONALIS. 



Astroqonium meridionale, E. A. Smith, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist, 

 xvii. (1876) p. 109. 



