502 
Miscellaneous . 
too much in so small a space. The Notes on Distribution are stated 
by Mr. Davis to have been mainly prepared from Wallace. They 
contain a mass of facts in a very small compass, and by their aid 
the intelligent student will, with the minimum of trouble to himself, 
be able to 44 get up ” several general questions which the hearts of 
examiners in zoology love. Nevertheless we should much like to 
have Mr. Davis’s reasons for including the lion among the species 
peculiar to the Ethiopian Region. 
MISCELLANEOUS. 
Is Asterias tenuispina, Lamk., a British Species? 
In reply to Prof. Jeffrey Bell’s inquiry (p. 424) I should say most 
certainly that Asterias tenuispina , Lamk., is not British. I have 
never seen or heard of an authentic specimen. It is true, as Prof. 
Jeffrey Bell remarks, that Gray in his 4 Synopsis ’ writes “ Inhab. 
British coast , Mediterranean ; ” but upon what evidence is this asser- 
tion made? I conclude upon a synonym he gives, 44 Ast. spinosa. 
Pennant.” WTiat, then, has Pennant to say ? — “ Ast. with Jive rays 
of almost equal thickness, beset with numerous spines.” Five will 
not do for A. tenuispina. Moreover, Pennant does not appear to 
have seen the form himself. He gives two references — one to Bor- 
lase’s 6 Cornwall,’ tab. xxv. fig. 18, the other to Linck, tab. iv. no. 7. 
Borlase is not in my library, but a reference to Linck shows a figure 
of a five-rayed starfish, certainly not A. tenuispina , of which he 
writes : — 4 4 Yivse sunt subcaerulese. Ejusdem speciei duplo majores 
se invenisse fatetur, primum in Oceano occidentali Hybernico, post 
juxta Pensans in Cornubio.” Here seems to be the origin of Gray’s 
mistaken statement that Asterias tenuispina is found on our 
coast. Linck’s figure and his words 44 Yivae sunt subceeruleae ” 
appear to me conclusively to prove that the starfish which he called 
Pentadactylosaster spinosus regularis was a small specimen of A. 
glacialis. 
Asterias tenuispina , Lamarck, has six to eight arms and is a littoral 
form. Such a distinct species could scarcely have evaded discovery 
if it occurred on our shores. It is a well-known Mediterranean 
Asterid, which would appear to have had a southern origin. It is 
said to have occurred in the Madeiran, Canary *, and Cape-Yerd 
Islands, and in the Florida Sea ( Ludvig ) ; and also at Bermuda, 
Abrolhos, Mauritius, Java, Molucca, Australia, and Hong Kong 
{Perrier). In the Mediterranean it is recorded from many places on 
the Italian and Sicilian coasts and in the Adriatic. My own speci- 
mens are from Naples {Staz. Zool .) and Mahon, Spain ( Sehor Pedro 
Antiga), this last being the only known occurrence of the species in 
the western Mediterranean ; but Quatrefages records it much further 
* It is figured by d’Orbigny from the Canaries, Webb and Bertlielot, 
Hist. Nat. des lies Canaries, Echinodermes, pi. iii. figs. 14-20. 
