: i!
!
i i
T able V.—List of Ophiuroidea collected by th e ‘ Alert.’
1.
2.
3 .
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1 3 .
1 4 .
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
3 0 .
31.
Pectinura gorgonia
infernalis.......
megaloplax ...
stellata ...........
Ophiopeza conjungens,...
Ophiolepis annulosa ...
Ophioplocus imbricatus
Ophiactis savignii...........
Ophionereis dubia .......
Ophiocoma brevipes ...
scolopendrina ......
• ermaceus
pica
Ophiarthrum elegans ...
Ophiarachna incrassata
Ophiothrix trilineata ...
propinqua ...........
longipeda..............
cffispitosa..............
martensi .............
striolata ..............
galate®..................
ciliaris ................. .
rotata .................
fumaria .............
punctolimbata.................
microplax.........................
— darwini .........................
melanogramma .............
Ophiomaza cacaotica .............
Euryale aspera.........................
■Vh O g
P ^n OP. O ^
*
*
,-3
iP lo l ^ M 2 P
*
*******
*
■it■
if-
****
**
***
**
****
*
*
*
■it (var.)
♦
■it
■it
•it
■it
■it
■it
■it*
**
■it
The collections of the ‘A le rt’ afford us, then, another justification for
the view of the existence in the Indo-Pacific of a widely distributed
common fauna.
I t must, however, he carefully borne in mind th at the greater p a rt
o f this common fa u n a is restricted to ihe inter-tropical zone; what
little we know of the fauna of the Southern Japanese seas leads us
to think th at the common forms are to be found there also.
The majority of extra-Australian naturalists have as yet failed a
little in recognizing the lesson which these collections bring so
prominently forward—a lesson already being learnt by those who
have the best opportunities of examining the characters of the
Australian fa u n a ; the term Australian, without definition or
limitation, affords no exact informationf. I t is greatly to be
regretted that in his tables of the distribution of the species collected
t As is well known, Dr. Gunther has long since recognized this as reo'ards
Fishes, and has instituted a South-Australian District (Introd. Study of
Fishes, p. 283).
by the ‘ Challenger,’ Mr. Alexander Agassiz should have'devoted one
to the species of “ West, South, and North-East Australia New
Zealand; ” nor can we wonder when we find one who, ten years
ago (Rev. Ech. p. 230), spoke of the Australian as the “ 'most
typical of all the districts,” saying in 1881 that the “ whole of the
Australian field seems to be cut out of the Indo-Pacific realm.” I t
is clear th at these statements oppose each other, and th at a more
accurate representation of the facts would be made in terms like
the following:—The species found on the northern and northeastern
shores of Australia have a wide range eastward and westward,
but gradually disappear as we pass southwards.
In fine, an Australian Echinoderm-fauna, as conterminous with
the Australian shores, does not exist.
I t may be convenient for the student if I sum up the points in
which Dr. Coppinger’s collections have most advanced our knowledge.
Asteroidea.—Two faunal lists of the Australian Asteroidea have
been published during the last few years; one by our great authority
on this subject, Professor Perrier*, of the Jardin des Plantes, the
other, which, as I imagine, was partly based on it, by the Rev.
J. E. Tenison-Woods f . I t has been difficult so to marshal the
facts contained in these essays as to be able to render easily
intelligible the advances now made in our knowledge; this is
chiefly due to the fact th at while M. Perrier (justified, no doubt, by
tho evidence in his hands) distinguished between the fauna of the
northern and of the other coasts of Australia, Mr. Woods was preparing
a list which should he of use to the Australian student
generally. Eurther than this, the present collection is from the
northern and the eastern coasts of Australia.
I t is not necessary to give all the steps by which I have worked
out the question of how far our knowledge of the distribution of
the Asteroidea is increased by the,present collection. P u t shortly,
we find th at while Mr.'Woods’s compilation was of value as givin<v
us certain information as to the localities of Tosia ornata, which was
described by Müller and Troschel from an unknown habitat, and of
the Patiria ocellifera of Gray, the locality of which could only be
guessed at from the fact of its having been described in the Appendix
to the Voyage of the ‘Ely,’ Mr. Coppinger’s collection enables us
to fix one locality at least for Anthenea flavescens and Nepanthia
belcheri, extends the range of Linckia marmorata from Mauritius to
Australia, gives more southern stations for Archaster typicus and
Stellaster belcheri, extends St. incei westward from Cape York to the
Arafura Sea, and puts in Port Denison as intermediate between
Cape York and South Australia.
I t may he, perhaps, useful if 1 point out that definite information
is still wanting as to the exact habitats of Asterias fungifera,
Anthenea acuta, Nectria ocellifera, Oreaster australis, 0. franldini,
0. nodulosusX, Tosia astrologorum, and T. aurata. I t is hardly
* Nouv. Arch, du Mus. (2) i.
t Philos. Soc. Adela,ide, 1878-9, p. 89.
'1 Since this was written the Trustees have purchased two specimens of 0.
nodulosus from N.W. Australia.
it
; , Üi
( I ! ' ,
: It
I ‘
I ' r