282 
Pentagonaster pulchellus. Ben ham. 1909. Echinoderma. Sci. Res. N. Z. 
G. Trawl. Exp. 1907. Rec. Canterb. Mus. 1. 2 . p. 11. 
— abnormalis. Benham. 1909. Ibidem p. 11. PI. VIII. fig. 5. 
Paterson Inler, Stewart isl. 18/XI. 1914. Under stones on the coast. 2 
specimens. 
Halfmoon Bay, 5—7 fms. Sand. 19/XI. 1914. 1 young specimen. 
Queen Charlotte Sound. 3—10 fms. Hard bottom. 20/1. 1915. 1 specimen. 
Wellington Harbour. 5—10 fms. 16/11. 1915. 1 specimen. 
I have also specimens from Foveaux Strait (Prof. Ben ham), 
from off Otago, 20—30 fms. (Prof. Ben ham), and from Napier 
(collected by my brother, Mr. H. Mortensen, 1911). 
A careful study of the fairly rich material in hånd has led me 
to the conclusion that Pentagonaster abnormalis is not to be dis- 
tinguished from P. pulchellus, and I have therefore united it 
with that species as a simple synonym only. Already Perri er 
(Op. cit.) States that in his opinion P. abnormalis is comprised 
within the range of variations ol P. pulchellus. Farquhar (1895) 
thinks that “when good series of both fjrms are obtained and com- 
pared” the differences will prove sufficiently constant for regarding 
them as two distinet species, and later on (1897) he States that 
his examination of further material has convinced him that they 
are two distinet species. Ben ham, on the other hånd (Op. cit. p. 
12) is inelined to think “that the rarer P. pulchellus is merely a 
very abnormal variation of the common P. abnormalis'’, although 
his material does not appear to him to justify simply uniting them 
into one species. The material available to me seems to me to 
leave no doubt but that it is all only one single, very variable 
species. Although the form with the mueh swollen outer marginals, 
Gray's pulchellus, appears to be the rarer, the name pulchellus, being 
the first named of the two in Gray’s work, is the one to be re- 
tained; abnormalis accordingly is to be dropped as a synonym only 
of pulchellus. It is a curious faet that the species was never properly ' 
described or figured, although mentioned fairly often in literature. 
Farquhar (1897) States to have drawn up a description of the 
species, but it was never published. It may therefore not be super- 
fluous to give a somewhat more detailed description of it, accom- 
panied with some figures to show structural details and also to 
demonstrate the variation in general shape. 
