312 
Port Ross, Auckland Islands. Under stones, at low tide. 26/XI. 1914. 
Several specimens. 
Masked Island, Carnley Harbour. Under stones, at low tide. 29/XI. 1914. 
Several specimens. 
Figure 8 Island, Carnley Harbour. Under stones, at low tide. 2/XII. 1914. 
7 specimens. 
Adams Island, Carnley Harbour. Under stones, at low tide. 29/XI. 1914. 
3 large specimens. 
Perseverance Harbour, Campbell Island. Under stones, at low tide. 
8 — 10/XII. 1914. Several specimens. 
While Farquharand Benham regard this form as a variety 
only of C. Suteri, Fis her gives it the rank of a distinet species. 
I must decidedly agree with Fisher in this view. The reason for 
regarding it only as a variety of C. Suteri the said authors find 
in the faet that sometimes a median row of spines is distinetly 
developed on the arms, as also some spines on the disk. This is 
perfeetly true; it is even not at all rare that all the plates of the 
aboral side carry spines, the whole of the aboral side, disk and 
arms, being thus covered by a fairly close coat of spines. (This 
does not depend upon age, as we find young specimens with numer- 
ous spines and large specimens quite destitute of spines). But 
contrary to the very characteristic, regular arrangement of these 
spines in C. Suteri, the spines in the present species are quite ir- 
regularly arranged; at most there is a distinet midradial series, 
consisting of single spines, while in C. Suteri the midradial spines 
are placed in very regular groups. Also the spines are smaller in 
the present species than in C. Suteri, whereas their microscopical 
structure is essentially the same in both. (Koehler. Op. cit. PI. 
XXII.4). The spines of the inframarginal plates are not rarely 3, 
sometimes even 4, in an oblique series, against 2 in C. Suteri; 
however, they are more commonly 2, even in large specimens, also 
in the present species. — In regard to the pedicellariæ I do not find 
any noteworthy differences between the two species, either in structure 
or arrangement. The teeth of the crossed pedicellariaø may be 
somewhat larger than in C. Suteri; but this is no constant character. 
I made the interesting observation that this species protects 
its brood in the same way as do so many other sea-stars, the 
young being attached in great bundles around the mouth of 
the mother specimen (PI. XIII. Fig. 12). The faet that in all the 
