194 NATURAL HISTORY BULLETIN 



it has been redescribed by any writer since Say, in 1825. Liit- 

 ken mentions it as probably an Astropecten, but adds nothing to 

 its history. It is ignored by Perrier, 1876, and by nearly all 

 later writers, except quotations by name only. 



The description by Say is very incomplete. Aside from char- 

 acters common to all species of Astropecten, the only points of 

 importance that he gives are the following : 



The disk is broad, rays depressed. The dorsal paxill« have 

 ten to eighteen small, equal, cylindrical spinules. 



The marginal plates bear ' ' about four very much compressed, 

 subquadrate, truncated spines, which are vertically appressed 

 to the surface of the plate, and imbricated with respect to each 

 other." Diameter fourteen inches. Cape May, N. J. ''It is 

 very rare on this coast." 



Presented to the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, 

 by Mr. Robbins. 



In Ives's more recent list of Asterioidea (1889), in the collec- 

 tion of the Academy, no such specimen is mentioned. Probably 

 the type is lost. It is probably not an Astropecte7i. 



In having a large disk, and especially in having four appressed 

 spines in a transverse row on the inferomarginal plates, the 

 Sidenaster grandis V. agrees, perhaps, with Say's species. But 

 he gives too little, as to other characters, to enable us to say 

 whether they are related. Bideriaster grandis is from the Gulf 

 of Mexico, in 68 fathoms, off Mobile, Alabama, and therefore 

 might, possibly, occur in deep water, off Cape May, but it is not 

 very probable that it does, for the very numerous dredgings of 

 the Albatross in that region brought up nothing of the kind. 

 Nor do we know whether the four appressed spines, mentioned 

 by Say, occupy the same places as those of Sideriaster, This 

 comparison, therefore, is intended as a suggestion. 



Perhaps the most notable thing said about A. vestitus is the 

 remarkably large size. Say states that his unique specimen was 

 one foot and two inches in diameter. This size is much greater 

 than that of any American Astropecten seen by me or recorded 

 by others, but is not unusual for species of Luidia. Some for- 

 eign species of Astropecten have been described of that size, 

 however. 



As Say does not mention any spines of the superomarginal 



