154 
developed, only at one pore a single triangular scale is found, 
which would seem to indicate that this species belongs to the group 
of Åmphiura's with one tentacle scale only. The proximal dorsal 
plates somewhat elongate, farther out they are shorter, more rounded. 
separated from one another. Three short, cylindric, subequal arm¬ 
spines. 
The characteristic scaling of the dorsal side of the disk recalls 
Åmphioplus basilicus; also the ventral plates and the oral parts bear 
a considerable resemblance to that species, as seen on a compar- 
ison with fig. 28. The lacking of the tentacle scales evidently is 
due to the specimen being too young for yet having them devel¬ 
oped and, therefore, might not be sufficient reason for not simply 
referring this specimen to Åmphioplus basilicus. But the single outer 
oral papilla is so important a character, scarcely to be accounted 
for by the young age of the specimen alone, that it is out of 
question to identify the specimen with that species. (The youngest 
specimen of Å. basilicus in hånd, scarcely 2 mm diameter of disk, 
already has the mouth papillæ typically developed). Also the arms 
are very much shorter in Å. basilicus of a corresponding size, only 
ca. 3 mm against ca. 10 mm in the present specimen. Upon the 
whole, it is out of question that these two forms could be more 
nearly related, in spite of the conspicuous resemblances pointed 
out above. 
32. Amphiocnida pilosa (Lyman). 
Figs. 27 . 1 —10. 
Ophiocnida pilosa. Ly man. 1882. Challenger Ophiuroidea, p. 153. Pi. 
XIX.7-9. 
— — H. L. C 1 a rk. 1909. Sci. Res. Trawling Exped. “Thetis“ 
Mern. Austral. Mus. IV. p. 541. 
Amphiocnida — A. E. Ver ri 11. 1899. Revision of certain families 
and genera of West Indian Ophiurans. Tr. Conn. 
Acad. X. p. 318. 
— — H. L. Clark. 1915. Cat. Recent Ophiurans, p. 237. 
Colville Channel; 35 fms; sandy mud. 21/XII.14. 8 specimens. 
Several minor points of difference existing between the spec¬ 
imens from New Zealand and the type of this species (from Bass 
Strait) as described and figured by Ly man (Op. cit.), tend to 
make the referring of the New Zealand form to this species some¬ 
what uncertain. However, the very great variability exhibited by 
