of Edinburgh , ■ Session 1881-82. 705 
across the base of a ray. Papulae few, not more than 1 to 3 in a 
group. 
Ambulacral spines : (1) furrow series, six on each plate near the 
mouth, five on the more outward plates, the aboral spine smallest ; 
(2) transverse series composed of eight spines. The two spines 
nearest the furrow are placed more aborally than the rest, which gives 
the line of base of each transverse series an aboral curve at the furrow 
side. The middle spines are longest, the outermost smallest ; all 
tapering to a fine point, robust at the base ; no webbing apparent. 
Mouth-plates with robust mouth-spines, and a prominent series of 
9 to 10 secondary superficial spinelets, larger than the marginal mouth- 
spines. Interbrachial areas covered with small paxilhe, and rather 
crowded. 
Remarks . — On comparing with the above form a typical Crossaster 
papj^osus of the same diameter, it will be found that in the latter the 
rays, which are 11 to 13 in number, are less tapering and relatively 
longer, the proportion being It >2 *5 r. The dorsal area of the disk 
is very little higher than the rays. The paxillse are larger, fewer, 
more widely spaced, and bear a greater number of spinelets, usually 
about 40, which are arranged much more compactly and give the 
paxillse a more rounded appearance,— often resembling that of a well- 
worn brush, the central spinelets being longest. The papulae are 
more numerous, 5 to 10 or more. Ambulacral spinelets three in the 
inner or furrow series, — a fourth very minute one, placed aborally, 
being present near the mouth. Transverse combs of five spinelets, 
those near the furrow series longest ; line of base straight ; webbing 
at the base more or less present. All the spinelets are more delicate 
in character than in the variety. Mouth-plates with delicate spines ; 
secondary mouth-spines not more than two or three. Interbrachial 
areas quite naked or with only one or two small paxillae. 
This variety conforms in several respects with the admirable 
description given by Danielssen and Koren* of the form which they 
refer to the Solaster affinis of Brandt. The differences, however, are 
so marked that I cannot regard them as one and the same form ; and 
in none of the specimens which I have examined either from the 
“ Porcupine ” or the “ Knight Errant ” dredgings can I recognise an 
identity with the specimens described by the eminent Norwegian 
* Nyt Mag.f. NaturvidensJc 1877, bd. xxiii. 3, p. 57. 
