70 NATUEAL HISTORY BULLETIN 



Poraniella also closely resembles, in general appearance, Mar- 

 ginaster of Perrier. The type of the latter (so designated by 

 Sladen, 1889) is M. pectinatus Per. (1881.) This has a different 

 structure of the dorsal skeleton and very different adambulacral 

 spines, which do not form a furrow-comb. In fact, it is covered 

 with a thick dermis and is, without much doubt, the young of 

 a large species of Porania or some closely similar genus.^^ 



The Marginaster echinulatus Perrier, is nearer Poraniella in 

 structure, for it has furrow-spines in a comb of two or three and 

 a transverse row on the actinal face as in the latter. 



Poraniella regulaeis Yerrill. 



Foraniella regularis Verrill, Annals and Mag. Nat. History, vol. xiv, p. 19, 

 July, 1914c. 



Plate vii; figures 1 — la. Plate xv; figures 5 — 55. Details. 



A small depressed stellate starfish, with a wide and somewhat 

 convex disk and short, rapidly tapered, subacute rays, with rath- 

 er thin fringed margins. Radii of the type, 6™™ and 12^^ ; ratio, 



transverse row. Interactinal plates are in regular chevrons, each with a com- 

 pact cluster of small spinules. 



Type, L. villosus Sladen (1889),, said by Sussbaeh and Breckner (op. cit., 

 1910, p. 219), to be the same species as L. hispidus (Sars, 1871) ; P. rosea 

 Dan. and Kor. (18S4:) ;Biiegaster murrayi Sladen (1883); PoraniomorpJia 

 spinulosa Verrill (1879); B. dorealis Yerrill (1878). See Plate x, -figures 

 3, 3a. 



If this be correct, the name should be Bhegaster Mspidus (Sars), for 

 Bhegaster is six years earlier than Lasiaster. Our two New England 

 species appear to me to be distinct and should be called Bhegaster spiii- 

 ulosus and B. horeaUs. See Verrill, 1914c, pp. 17, 18, pi. i, figs, la, 16, 2. 



The latter is very closely related to B. murrayi, the type of BJiegaster. 

 It differs in having the interactinal spinules longer and in special clusters, 

 but the whole dorsal and marginal surfaces are densely clothed with uni- 

 form erect miliary spinules, entirely concealing the plates and sutures, 

 as in Bhegaster . Whether either of - our species is the same as Bhegaster 

 Mspidus (Sars) I am not able to say. That is the earliest name of any 

 species; iorealis is next in order (1878.) In Lasiaster the spinules do 

 not cover the sutures, and therefore the outlines of the plates are more or 

 less visible, and the superomarginal plates are larger and thicker. See also 

 1914c, in Annals and Magazines Nat. History, vol. xiv, pp. 17, 18. 



16 I have before me equally small specimens of Porania insignis V. and 

 Bhegaster spinulosus V., which agree very closely with Marginaster in de- 

 tails of structure. 



