ZOOLOGY OF THE BERMUDAS. 137 



structure and with illustrations of the spicules, which prac- 

 tically leave no doubt in my mind that the Bermudian forms, 

 even though differing somewhat from the type described by 

 Pourtalfes, are really that species. I have examined the spicu- 

 lar bodies of all the individuals, and find that they exhibit 

 considerable variation (PL , figs. 6, 6a, 7, 7a). This is especially 

 noticeable in the form of the stools. I really doubt if verj' 

 much dependence can be placed upon these bodies as furnish- 

 ing characters for specific distinction. I also find a certain 

 amount of variation in the number of tentacles. Thus, while 

 four of the individuals have the normal number of tentacles, 

 20, one has only 10, although in all other essentials of struct- 

 ure it agrees with the remaining four. The dorsal surface is 

 distinctly papillate. The elongated yellowish pedicels of the 

 ventral surface are irregularly distributed, as stated by Selenka, 

 and I could not determine any strictly linear disposition such 

 as is indicated by PourtalSs. 



The largest specimen measures about two and a half inches. 



Semper, Ludwig, and Lampert (Die Seewalzen, Semper's 

 Reisen im Archipd der Philippinen, 1885, p. 86) identify this 

 species with the Holothuria atra of Jager (1833), whose range is 

 made to be practically cosmopolitan — extending from the 

 Kadack Archipelago and the Sandwich Islands to Adelaide, 

 Zanzibar, the Red Sea, and the West Indies — but on this point 

 I can offer no satisfactory evidence, never having had an op- 

 portunity to examine authentic specimens of Jager's species. 



Holothuria captiva, Ludwig. (PI. 12, figs. 4, 4a.) 



Two individuals, agreeing with the species described by 

 Ludwig from the Barbados. 



Holotliuria abbreviata, u. sp. (Fl. 12, figs. 3, 8, 8a.) 



Among the smaller forms of holothurians is one which in 

 many of its characters agrees most closely with Ludwig's H. 

 captiva, but yet differs to such an extent as to compel me to rec- 

 ognize it as a distinct species. Indeed, by many systematists 

 it would probably be made the type of a distinct sub-genus or 



