SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution. Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series:

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

Smithsonian Folklife Studies

Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space

Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology

In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale monographs that report the research and collections of its various museums and bureaux or of professional colleagues in the world of science and scholarship. The publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world.

Papers or monographs submitted for series publication are received by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to its own review for format and style, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums or bureaux, where the manuscripts are given substantive review Press requirements for manuscript and art preparation are outlined on the inside back cover.

Robert McC. Adams

Secretary

Smithsonian Institution

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY • NUMBER 537

Philippine Brittlestars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) Described by R. Koehler (1922): A Corrected and Annotated List of Type Specimens

Cynthia Ahearn

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

Washington, D.C.

1992

ABSTRACT

Ahearn, Cynthia. Philippine Brittlestars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) Described by R. Koehler (1922): A Corrected and Annotated List of Type Specimens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, number 537, 15 pages, 31 tables, 1992.—The status of the type specimens of the 68 new species described in R. Koehler's (1922) publication titled, “Ophiurans of the Philippine Seas and Adjacent Waters” is reviewed. Koehler designated type specimens in only a few new species. A.H. Clark translated Koehler's manuscript from French to English, and he attempted to make up for deficiencies in designation of types by adding to the paper a list of types “designated by the museum” (USNM). Clark was inconsistent in selecting specimens that he had designated as types, and the problems were compounded by an abundance of clerical errors, unnecessary recataloging of specimens, and inclusion of the same specimens in more than one species description. An attempt is made here to resolve discrepancies, and correct the status of the types of Koehler's new species. Tables are provided to demonstrate how Koehler's original text was corrected. Two taxonomic actions are included herein; new lectotype specimens are designated for Ophiothrix cumulata Koehler and Ophiomusium facundum Koehler.

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIES COVER DESIGN: The coral Montastrea cavernosa (Linnaeus).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Aheam, Cynthia

Philippine brittlestars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) described by R. Koehler (1922): a corrected and annotated list of type specimens / Cynthia Ahearn.

p. cm.—(Smithsonian contributions to zoology ; no. 537)

Includes bibliographic references (p. ) and index.

1. Ophiuroidea—Type specimens—Philippines. 2. Koehler, R. (René), b. 1860. Ophiurans of the Philippine seas and adjacent waters. I. Koehler, R. (René), b. 1860. II. Title. III. Series.

QL1.S54 no. 537 [QL384.06] 591 s–dc20 [593.9′4 92-23874

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48—1984.

Contents

Introduction

List of Abbreviations

Acknowledgments

Species with Corrections in Locality or Type Status

Neoplax crassipes Koehler

Ophiophrixus confinis Koehler

Ophiacantha severa Koehler

Ophiogema punctata Koehler

Ophiocopa singularis Koehler

Ophiurothamnus excavatus Koehler

Ophiomitra dives Koehler

Ophiomitrella sagittata Koehler

Ophiomitrella subjecta Koehler

Ophioripa marginata Koehler

Ophioripa nugator Koehler

Ophioplinthaca globata Koehler

Ophioplinthaca hastata Koehler

Amphiura commutata Koehler

Amphiura dejecta Koehler

Amphiodia debita Koehler

Amphioplus lucidus Koehler

Amphioplus luctator Koehler

Amphilimna multispina Koehler

Ophiocentrus vexator Koehler

Ophiactis definita Koehler

Ophiothrix cumulata Koehler

Ophiogymna funesta Koehler

Amphiophiura spatulifera Koehler

Ophiura fluctuans Koehler

Stegophiura sterilis Koehler

Ophiomusium armatum Koehler

Ophiomusium facetum Koehler

Ophiomusium facundum Koehler

Ophiomusium ligatum Koehler

Ophiomusium spinulosum Koehler

Ophiozonella subtilis Koehler

Appendix

Literature Cited

Index

Requirements for Smithsonian Series Publication

Philippine Brittlestars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) Described by R. Koehler (1922): A Corrected and Annotated List of Type Specimens

Cynthia Ahearn

____________

Cynthia Ahearn, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20560.

Introduction

A comprehensive study of Indo-Pacific ophiuroids by R. Koehler (1922) was based largely on material collected by the United States Fisheries Steamer Albatross during the years 1907–1910. A total of 227 species, 68 of them new, were described, and deposited in the United States National Museum (USNM), now the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). For convenience, the collections and catalogs are still referred to by the prefix, USNM. While verifying bibliographic citations for the computer inventory of type specimen collections, I noticed discrepancies between the information on specimen labels and that presented in Koehler's (1922) report. Closer study revealed numerous problems surrounding the status of Koehler's types. All of the type material was then re-examined and compared with the designations in his paper.

In most of his descriptions, Koehler did not clearly select types. A note on the title page of the publication states that A.H. Clark translated the manuscript from French to English and, during the translation, Clark must have noted that Koehler had been less than consistent in designating types! For many species, no types at all had been designated. In an attempt to rectify this situation, Clark added a list of specimens “designated by the Museum” as holotypes or lectotypes of Koehler's new species (p. 452–453).

Clark's authorship of this list is inferred from the fact that he translated the manuscript and, in addition, he entered all the ophiuroids in Koehler's publication into the USNM catalogs, including the designated type specimens (his handwriting in the USNM catalogs was verified against many examples in NMNH). This list of Clark's has apparently been overlooked or ignored by subsequent authors. For example, Downey (1969), in her “Catalog of Recent Ophiuroid Type Specimens in Major Collections in the United States,” listed as syntypes most of Koehler's new species based on multiple specimens, and did not address the clerical problems in his report, such as including type specimens in the material examined section of more than one species or in an incorrect species. In addition, the types of eight of the new species in Koehler's report (1922) were not included in her type catalog. According to knowledgeable authorities at the NMNH, and the relevant articles (72–74) of the 1985 edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), particularly Article 74, Clark's lectotype designations are valid.

Of the sixty-eight new species in Koehler's publication, 40 are described from single specimens which are holotypes, thereby presenting no problem with type status. However, in four of these “single specimen” new species, some confusion exists relating to their descriptions and/or localities, and these are discussed individually below.

Twenty-eight species are based on multiple specimens. Whenever it is possible to determine Koehler's intent, the status of type specimens of these species is determined from his text. In other cases, Clark's lectotype designations are used, except where he was in error, for example, where he contradicted Koehler, or designated a type but did not select a specimen. Both Koehler and Clark inadvertently created other problems as well, by making clerical errors, assigning a second USNM catalog number to some type specimens, and including individual specimens in more than one species description. The situation for each species is unique and is discussed in detail below.

A list of species with unequivocal holotypes all based on single specimens, extracted from Clark's list (Koehler, 1922:452–453) is given (Table 1). The types of Koehler's new species that were not explicitly stated are discussed, and for each species a table of material listed in Koehler (1922) is provided, along with a discussion supporting decisions concerning the status of type specimens. The first three columns of each table are taken directly from Koehler's text and the remaining two columns resolve the errors found in the text and formally establishes the type status of each specimen.

An appendix of Albatross locality information for each type specimen in this report follows. According to the Albatross log records USBF (1907; 1910) a “dash” in latitude or longitude means that a seconds reading was not recorded in the Albatross station logs. This is contrary to Koehler's “List Of Stations, With Species Found At Each” (1922:442–447) in which either Koehler or Clark interpreted a latitude or longitude with no seconds as meaning “zero” seconds. This gives a degree of precision to the coordinates that was not intended in the Albatross station logs. Some specimen labels did not have station numbers although they were collected on the Albatross Philippines Expedition, and, in a few instances, the specimens came from collections other than the Albatross. In both of these cases, locality information is provided in the tables that are associated with each species.

Traditionally, the “Echinoderm and Coelenterate” collections of the USNM were documented into a single catalog number series. In 1920, A.H. Clark, curator of Echinoderms at the USNM, devised a numbering system unique to the Echinoderms, which is still used today. He began with the number one and each catalog number was prefixed with the letter E. This change occurred during the cataloging of the ophiuroids collected by the Albatross, so that both numbering systems for assigning the USNM catalog number are reflected in Koehler's text.

Complex problems were caused by the inconsistencies of Koehler in designation of types, and then of Clark in selection or designation of type specimens. Resolution of some problems involved extensive consultation with recognized experts in the principles and practice of zoological nomenclature. This work was, of course, necessary to correct the types of the species and to determine once and for all the status of various specimens in the USNM collections of types.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.—The following is a list of abbreviations of types that are used in the tables.

H

Holotype

P

Paratype(s)

L

Lectotype

PL

Paralectotype(s)

S

Syntypes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.—I am grateful to David L. Pawson who convinced me from the outset that this was indeed a necessary project and who along with Frederick M. Bayer, Gordon Hendler (Los Angeles County Museum, Los Angeles, California), and Anne Hoggett (Lizard Island Research Station, Queensland, Australia) kindly reviewed the manuscript and made many useful suggestions for improvement. I wish also to thank Frederick M. Bayer, Fenner A. Chace, Stephen D. Cairns, and David L. Pawson, all of the Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, for giving me many hours of their time for consultation, and interpretation of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Curtis W. Sabrosky, President of the ICZN and former Chairman of the Editorial Committee of the 1985 edition of the ICZN, who confirmed our interpretations of the Code.

TABLE 1.—New species named by Koehler (1922) that have a designated holotype.

Species with Corrections in Locality or Type Status

Neoplax crassipes Koehler

TABLE 2

Neoplax crassipes Koehler, 1922:22.

Koehler recorded Neoplax crassipes as collected from a depth of 13 fm (24 m) off southern Luzon in the Philippines. Contrary to Koehler's publication, the original ledger entry and label indicate station 5587, which was at a locality in Malaysia in a depth of 415 fm (759 m). Although Clark's ledger entry was made in May of 1920, two years prior to Koehler's publication, it is now impossible to determine which locality is correct.

TABLE 2.—Neoplax crassipes; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiophrixus confinis Koehler

TABLE 3

Ophiophrixus confinis Koehler, 1922:30.

The description of Ophiophrixus confinis was based on two specimens. Clark selected as the lectotype (p. 452) the specimen that Koehler mentioned first in his description. “The specimen from station 5123 is of large size, the diameter of the disk reaching 23 mm and the length of the arms 160 mm; unfortunately, the disk is in poor condition, the dorsal surface has been partially torn away and is more or less out of place.” The specimen from station 5592 (USNM E332) is the paralectotype.

TABLE 3.—Ophiophrixus confinis; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiacantha severa Koehler

TABLE 4

Ophiacantha severa Koehler, 1922:61.

In the second paragraph of his description, Koehler stated, “I shall describe the species with special reference to the specimen from station 5629, which is the larger and which is represented in figures 1–3 on plate 17.” Clark (p. 452) designated the specimen catalogued as USNM 41238 as the lectotype, although he incorrectly cited the station number as 5645 instead of the correct station 5629. The specimen from station 5645 (USNM 41237) is the paralectotype.

TABLE 4.—Ophiacantha severa; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiogema punctata Koehler

TABLE 5

Ophiogema punctata Koehler, 1922:67.

Koehler described this species very generally from all specimens. Clark selected the only photographed specimen (pl. 29: figs. 7–9), USNM 40989 from station 5166, as the lectotype (p. 452). He unnecessarily recataloged this specimen as USNM E1040 which is canceled. The original record, USNM 40989, is therefore retained for the lectotype. All remaining specimens in Table 5 are paralectotypes.

TABLE 5.—Ophiogema punctata; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiocopa singularis Koehler

TABLE 6

Ophiocopa singularis Koehler, 1922:98.

Koehler began his description, “The specimen from station 5348 is in good condition. The diameter of the disk is 8 mm; the arms are incomplete, but two of them are preserved for almost their entire length and must have been about 25 mm long….” Koehler did not designate a type for this species. Clark selected the specimen from station 5348 (USNM 41280) as the lectotype, which is larger and in better condition than the other (p. 452). The specimen from station 5173 (USNM 41283), which Koehler regarded in poor condition is the paralectotype.

TABLE 6.—Ophiocopa singularis; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiurothamnus excavatus Koehler

TABLE 7

Ophiurothamnus excavatus Koehler, 1922:105.

Koehler clearly designated a holotype in the first sentence of the description, “In the larger specimen, which I have taken as the type, the diameter of the disk is 5.5 mm; the arms are incomplete, broken off at 15 mm from the base; they must have been about 25 mm long….” Clark separated the two specimens and recataloged the holotype as USNM E1041 (p. 453). The smaller specimen from station 5428 (USNM 41195) is the paratype.

TABLE 7.—Ophiurothamnus excavatus; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiomitra dives Koehler

TABLE 8

Ophiomitra dives Koehler, 1922:107.

Koehler considered the two individuals to be in very good condition with the larger being quite complete and he described Ophiomitra dives from both specimens. Clark designated the larger, photographed specimen as the lectotype and recatalogued it as USNM E1042 (p. 452). The smaller specimen (USNM E22) is the paralectotype.

TABLE 8.—Ophiomitra dives; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiomitrella sagittata Koehler

TABLE 9

Ophiomitrella sagittata Koehler, 1922:111.

In the second paragraph of his description, Koehler stated, “I shall describe the species more especially from the two specimens from station 5629, of which the larger is shown in figures 1, 2, and 3 on pl. 27….” Clark separated the two specimens from station 5629 and recataloged the larger as the lectotype, USNM E1043 (p. 452). All remaining specimens in Table 9 are paralectotypes.

TABLE 9.—Ophiomitrella sagittata; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiomitrella subjecta Koehler

TABLE 10

Ophiomitrella subjecta Koehler, 1922:114.

Koehler included all specimens in describing this species. Clark designated as lectotype the specimen first mentioned by Koehler in his description, “In the largest specimen, which is one of the two from station 5325, the diameter of the disk is 9 mm; the arms are incomplete.” Clark separated the two specimens from station 5325 and recataloged the largest one shown in figure 8 on plate 26 as the lectotype, USNM E1044 (p. 452). The remaining five specimens are paralectotypes.

TABLE 10.—Ophiomitrella subjecta; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophioripa marginata Koehler

Ophioripa marginata Koehler, 1922:118.

Koehler created the new genus Ophioripa for two species, O. marginata and O. nugator, and gives only the station number 4781 without a discussion of the locality or depth. In his introduction, Koehler included a synopsis of localities of all the ophiuroids sent to him for identification. He mentioned the Philippines, Japan, and the Samoan Islands as the only localities represented in the collection. According to USBF, 1906, both of the new species of Ophioripa were taken from station 4781, which is in the Bering Sea, off the Aleutian Islands at a depth of 482 fm (882 m).

Ophioripa nugator Koehler

Ophioripa nugator Koehler, 1922:119.

See Ophioripa marginata for discussion.

Ophioplinthaca globata Koehler

TABLE 11

Ophioplinthaca globata Koehler, 1922:132.

Koehler referred to many specimens in his description of Ophioplinthaca globata and did not select a type. Clark segregated one specimen from the 20 specimens listed from station 5123 (Table 11, Footnote 1.) and catalogued it as USNM E1045. He designated this specimen the lectotype (p. 453) based on the opening sentence of Koehler's description; “I shall describe this species on the basis of one of the specimens from station 5123, which is represented in figure 8 on plate 25….” All remaining specimens in Table 11 are paralectotypes.

TABLE 11.—Ophioplinthaca globata; material listed in Koehler 1922 (– = no catalog number given in Koehler's text).

Ophioplinthaca hastata Koehler

TABLE 12

Ophioplinthaca hastata Koehler, 1922:137.

Koehler designated the type of Ophioplinthaca hastata for he began his description, “I shall describe this species from the specimen from station 5586, in which the diameter of the disk is 7 mm and the arms are about 30 mm long, only two being preserved entire.” He does not specifically refer to this specimen (USNM 41002) being the type until the last paragraph of the description section. There, in discussing characters of the specimen from station 5280, he stated, “It differs from the type specimen which I have just described….” The specimen from station 5280 (USNM 41003) is the paratype.

TABLE 12.—Ophioplinthaca hastata; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Amphiura commutata Koehler

TABLE 13

Amphiura commutata Koehler, 1922:152.

Koehler designated USNM 41174 as the holotype of Amphiura commutata, although his statement (p. 152), “One hundred and sixty-two specimens (Cat. No. 41174; type, Cat. 41175, USNM)” is misleading. The assumption of type designation is based on the fact that Koehler himself segregated the one specimen (USNM 41174) from the remaining specimens, all of which originated from the same lot. Unfortunately, the holotype is now in too poor a condition to permit comparison with the other large specimen in Koehler's statement; “In the two larger specimens the diameter of the disk is 6mm; the arms are from 35 mm to 38 mm in length.” USNM 41174 contains only two small arm fragments and a few separated arm plates. Either this is what remains of the holotype, or quite possibly, the holotype was inadvertently placed in the bottle of the 159 remaining paratypes (USNM 41175) during a subsequent examination of the type specimens.

Clark unnecessarily assigned a new catalog number, USNM E1046, to the holotype (p. 452); this is declared a voided entry.

TABLE 13.—Amphiura commutata; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Amphiura dejecta Koehler

TABLE 14

Amphiura dejecta Koehler, 1922:154.

Koehler described this species from a single specimen without mention of a USNM catalog number. In fact, there was no specimen labelled Amphiura dejecta in the USNM collections. However, Koehler's description of Amphiura dejecta and the corresponding photographs (pl. 66: figs. 4, 5) exactly match the specimen identified by him as Amphiura agitata Koehler, 1904 (p. 79), and labelled USNM 41166, also from station 5592 (p. 151). Koehler (1922) himself stated that this particular specimen differed in many of the typical characters from A. agitata (p. 151). Even the most obvious characters, such as size of dorsal plates and number of spines per arm plate, disagree with those of typical A. agitata. Interestingly, he did not photograph this specimen under the name A. agitata. Koehler used the same specimen to describe his new species A. dejecta (p. 154) and to report the occurrence of A. agitata in the Albatross material. He mistakenly reported this specimen as Amphiura agitata, and it is the type of his new species, Amphiura dejecta.

Clark assigned a USNM catalog number, E1047, to the holotype of Amphiura dejecta (p. 452) without actually selecting the specimen. This number is retained for the holotype of Amphiura dejecta to avoid confusion with Koehler's (1922) record of Amphiura agitata. Since it has been determined that Koehler did not have a specimen of A. agitata in the Albatross collection, USNM 41166 is declared a voided entry.

TABLE 14.—Amphiura dejecta; material listed in Koehler 1922 (– = no catalog number given in Koehler's text).

Amphiodia debita Koehler

TABLE 15

Amphiodia debita Koehler, 1922:168.

In the first paragraph of his description, Koehler stated, “All the specimens are incomplete; the dorsal surface of the disk is torn off, and none of the arms is preserved for the full length; the largest is 40 mm long.” He did not select a type from these poorly preserved specimens. Clark assigned catalog number USNM E1048 for the lectotype (p. 452) but failed to segregate a specimen from USNM 41199. Koehler did not photograph an entire specimen with arms intact (pl. 69: figs. 3, 4). Clark may have intended the photographed specimen to be the lectotype, but all three specimens are now fragmented so it is not possible to recognize the photographed specimen. Therefore, the three specimens must remain a syntypic series, and USNM E1048 is declared a voided entry.

TABLE 15.—Amphiodia debita; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Amphioplus lucidus Koehler

TABLE 16

Amphioplus lucidus Koehler, 1922:176.

In the first paragraph of his description, Koehler stated, “I shall describe this species more especially from this specimen [station 5371], but as the radial shields have not quite the same form as in those from station 5161, I shall also give the characters of these as found in the latter.” As Koehler did not designate a type, Clark selected as lectotype (USNM 41126) the largest specimen from station 5371 (p. 452). The two specimens from station 5161 (USNM 41127) are paralectotypes.

TABLE 16.—Amphioplus lucidus; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Amphioplus luctator Koehler

TABLE 17

Amphioplus luctator Koehler, 1922:178.

Koehler stated that both specimens are similar in size and in the damaged condition of the disks and arms. He based the description on both specimens and did not designate a type. Koehler reported that all the arms of both specimens are incomplete; however, one arm is preserved for a length greater than 80 mm. Clark selected this specimen with the greatest arm length from station 5339 (USNM 41157) as the lectotype (p. 452). USNM 41158 from station 5358 is the paralectotype.

TABLE 17.—Amphioplus luctator; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Amphilimna multispina Koehler

TABLE 18

Amphilimna multispina Koehler, 1922:183.

Koehler stated (p. 184), “I shall describe this species from one of the specimens, from station 5375 (pl. 61, figs. 5, 6, 7), which is the largest.” Clark separated and recataloged the largest specimen and designated it as lectotype, USNM E1049 (p. 452). All other specimens in Table 18 are thus considered as paralectotypes.

TABLE 18.—Amphilimna multispina; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiocentrus vexator Koehler

TABLE 19

Ophiocentrus vexator Koehler, 1922:200.

Koehler clearly designated a holotype in the first sentence of the text, “The larger specimen, which I have taken as the type, is almost complete.” Clark unnecessarily recataloged this specimen as USNM E1051 (p. 452). The original record, USNM E10, is therefore retained for the holotype and USNM E1051 is canceled. The smaller specimen from station 5181 (USNM E11) is the paratype.

TABLE 19.—Ophiocentrus vexator; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiactis definita Koehler

TABLE 20

Ophiactis definita Koehler, 1922:187.

Koehler began his description, “I shall describe the species more especially on the basis of the two specimens from station 5119, of which I give photographs (pl. 64, figs. 1, 2, 7).” Koehler's caption for figure 7 of plate 64 (p. 466) is incorrect. It reads “dorsal surface of the specimen represented in fig. 1.” Figure 7 is actually the dorsal surface of the specimen represented in figure 2. Clark selected the specimen with photographs of the ventral and dorsal surface (pl. 64: figs. 2, 7), recataloged it as USNM E1050, and designated it the lectotype of Ophiactis definita (p. 452). The remaining eighteen specimens in Table 20 are paralectotypes.

TABLE 20.—Ophiactis definita; material listed in Koehler 1922 (– = no catalog number given in Koehler's text).

Ophiothrix cumulata Koehler

TABLE 21

Ophiothrix cumulata Koehler, 1922:220.

Koehler described this species based on many specimens. Of the 56 specimens listed in the material examined, only 25 are actually Ophiothrix cumulata. Conflicting labels (both O. cumulata and O. koreana Duncan) were associated with the specimens USNM E14, E15, and E16. Koehler stated in the first paragraph of his description, “The diameter of the disk varies between 10 mm and 13 mm in the majority of the specimens….” The majority of O. koreana in this collection have disk diameters less than 10 mm. Also, the disk spination in O. koreana is clearly different from that of O. cumulata. Koehler described the disk spination of Ophiothrix cumulata, “The dorsal surface between the large radial shields is covered with small and very short club spines, which are almost as long as broad and to which might well be given the name of elongated granules….” In O. koreana, club spines terminating in usually three long divergent spinules, cover the dorsal surface of the disk. Anne Hoggett in 1987, while researching the USNM holdings of the family Ophiotrichidae, indicated (notes with specimens) that these 31 specimens (USNM E14, E15, and E16) were not Koehler's new species Ophiothrix cumulata but rather, Ophiothrix koreana Duncan as Koehler's other handwritten label indicates.

In the second paragraph (p. 222), Koehler, referring to the number of specimens of Ophiothrix cumulata collected by the Albatross said, “In the 20 [specimens] which the collection contains….” In fact, he had 25 specimens of O. cumulata on which to base his species description. It is fairly certain in light of these differences that Koehler did not use the 31 specimens of O. koreana in describing O. cumulata.

Once the specimens of Ophiothrix koreana are eliminated from the material examined, the only locality at which O. cumulata was collected is station 5212. Clark assigned the USNM number E1052, from station 5212, to be the lectotype, but did not select a specimen (p. 453).

The five specimens Koehler photographed for plates 50–52 are catalogued as USNM E21. In referring to the arm spines being cylindrical, rather slender, with the tip rounded, Koehler stated, “These are the characters of the spines seen on individuals which may be considered as typical, as those of which I include photographs on plate 51, as figures 1, 2, and on plate 52, as figure 1.” Plate 51, figure 2 and plate 52, figure 1 are incorrectly captioned on page 463. The young specimen with a disk 7 mm in diameter is on plate 51, figure 2, and vice versa. Since there is no confusion over the specimen represented in figure 1 of plate 51, it is hereby designated the lectotype of Ophiothrix cumulata. However, the ventral view of the lectotype is actually figure 4 of plate 51 and not figure 3 as the caption indicates. Rather than introduce another catalog number, it is given the USNM number Clark had intended to use, USNM E1052. All remaining specimens of Ophiothrix cumulata in Table 21 are paralectotypes.

TABLE 21.—Ophiothrix cumulata; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiogymna funesta Koehler

TABLE 22

Ophiogymna funesta Koehler, 1922:292.

Koehler described this species from many specimens and did not designate a type. Clark selected a specimen as the lectotype, catalogued the entry as USNM E1053 (p. 452), but did not segregate a specimen from USNM E187 or USNM E374. USNM E1053 is therefore canceled. Three specimens were photographed (pl. 44: figs. 1–7). It is impossible to determine which one of the three specimens Clark intended to designate as the lectotype. In fact, Koehler's photographed specimens show three distinct variations of disk armature on the dorsal surface within the species (figs. 3, 6, 7). In addition, figures 3–7 show an extreme variability in the fragmentation of the dorsal surface of the upper arm plates in regards to form, dimensions, and the number of fragments. The variability of both the disk armature and the fragmentation of the upper arm plates does not seem to be a function of size or age of the specimens, rather, it is a variable character of the species. It would thus seem appropriate to retain syntypic status for all 66 specimens mentioned in Table 22.

TABLE 22.—Ophiogymna funesta; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Amphiophiura spatulifera Koehler

TABLE 23

Amphiophiura spatulifera Koehler, 1922:365.

Koehler described the two specimens individually because he noted that the plates of the dorsal surface of the disk showed a different arrangement, presumably due to a difference in age. Clark selected the larger specimen (USNM 41074), from station 5274, with a disk diameter of 9 mm, to be the lectotype (p. 452). The smaller specimen (USNM 41075), which is the paralectotype, is from station 5425. The station number of this specimen is correctly cited in the material examined (p. 365) but is incorrectly referred to in the text (p. 366), “I shall consider them individually, designating the one from station 5245 by the letter A and that from station 5274 by the letter B.”

TABLE 23.—Amphiophiura spatulifera; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiura fluctuans Koehler

TABLE 24

Ophiura fluctuans Koehler, 1922:377.

Koehler described the species on the basis of both specimens. Clark designated as lectotype the specimen Koehler first mentioned in his statement, “In one of the specimens the diameter of the disk is 19 mm; the arm which is best preserved reaches a length of 80 mm and it must have had a total length of about 100 mm.” Clark separated the specimens and recataloged the larger specimen (USNM E1055) photographed in figures 3, 4, and 5 of plate 85, as the lectotype (p. 453). The smaller specimen (USNM 41356) is the paralectotype.

TABLE 24.—Ophiura fluctuans; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Stegophiura sterilis Koehler

TABLE 25

Stegophiura sterilis Koehler, 1922:370.

The description of Stegophiura sterilis was based on a single specimen identified in the first paragraph, when Koehler stated, “In the specimen of which I give photographs (pl. 83, figs. 8–11) the diameter of the disk is 15 mm, and the arms are from 45 mm to 50 mm in length.” Clark designated this specimen the lectotype of the species (p. 453), but unnecessarily assigned it a new catalog number, USNM E1054. The original record, USNM 41379 is retained for the lectotype and USNM E1054 is canceled. The 31 specimens of USNM 41378 are paralectotypes.

TABLE 25.—Stegophiura sterilis; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiomusium armatum Koehler

TABLE 26

Ophiomusium armatum Koehler, 1922:389.

Koehler began his description, “The diameter of the disk is 14 mm; the arms are all incomplete.” He proceeded to describe Ophiomusium armatum from this single specimen without any reference to the smaller individual, although he never actually designated it the type. Clark selected this specimen (USNM 40923) as the lectotype (p. 452). The smaller specimen (USNM 40924) is the paralectotype.

TABLE 26.—Ophiomusium armatum; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiomusium facetum Koehler

TABLE 27

Ophiomusium facetum Koehler, 1922:394.

Koehler began his description, “I shall describe the species especially from the specimen from station 5127, of which I show the ventral surface on plate 91 as figure 2, and from the largest specimen from station 5423, the dorsal surface of which is shown in figure 3.” Clark selected the first specimen that Koehler mentioned, USNM 41370 from station 5127, as the lectotype (p. 452). The five remaining specimens of Ophiomusium facetum in Table 27 are paralectotypes.

It should be noted that, although a specimen of Ophiomusium facundum from station 5124 was included in the list of specimens examined, it was never directly referred to in the text, and probably was not used in the general description of Ophiomusium facetum.

TABLE 27.—Ophiomusium facetum; material listed in Koehler 1922 (– = no catalog number given in Koehler's text).

Ophiomusium facundum Koehler

TABLE 28

Ophiomusium facundum Koehler, 1922:398.

Koehler based his description of Ophiomusium facundum on several specimens. Clark selected USNM 41369 from station 5623 as the lectotype of this species (p. 452). The table shows this specimen to be Ophiomusium facetum from station 5263. Article 74(a)(i) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature specifies that the valid designation of a lectotype fixes the status of the specimen. Since Clark's lectotype designation is clearly not valid, a new lectotype is selected here. In the second paragraph of his description, Koehler stated, “I shall describe the species especially from the specimen from station 5378, in which the diameter of the disk is 18 mm; its arms are not complete; I include two photographs of it (pl. 89, figs. 1, 2).” The specimen from station 5378, USNM 41360, was inadvertently left out of the list of specimens examined (p. 398–399), but Koehler primarily based the description of Ophiomusium facundum on this specimen. Therefore USNM 41360 is hereby designated the lectotype of the species. The 16 remaining specimens of Ophiomusium facundum in Table 28 are paralectotypes.

Although two specimens of Ophiomusium facetum, one from station 5429 and one from station 5263, were included in the list of specimens examined, they were never directly referred to in the text, and probably were not used in the general description of Ophiomusium facundum.

TABLE 28.—Ophiomusium facundum; material listed in Koehler 1922 (– = no catalog number given in Koehler's text).

Ophiomusium ligatum Koehler

TABLE 29

Ophiomusium ligatum Koehler, 1922:408.

Although Koehler did not designate a type in his description of Ophiomusium ligatum, he especially emphasized the specimen from station 5445 in comparing it with another known species of Ophiomusium. Clark selected this individual, USNM E80 from station 5445, which is the only photographed specimen for the species represented in figures 3–5 on plate 90 as the lectotype (p. 452). The two specimens from station 5650 (USNM E81) are paralectotypes.

TABLE 29.—Ophiomusium ligatum; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiomusium spinulosum Koehler

TABLE 30

Ophiomusium spinulosum Koehler, 1922:418.

Koehler stated in the second paragraph of his description, “I shall describe the species more especially from the specimen from station 5651, which is a little larger than the others.” Clark designated USNM E190 from station 5651 which is photographed in figures 2–4 and 6–7 on plate 87 as the lectotype (p. 452). The two specimens from station 5650 (USNM E189) are paralectotypes.

TABLE 30.—Ophiomusium spinulosum; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Ophiozonella subtilis Koehler

TABLE 31

Ophiozonella subtilis Koehler, 1922:428.

Koehler began his description, “I shall describe this species from the two specimens from station 5371; in the larger the diameter of the disk reaches 10 mm, but the arms are all incomplete; in the smaller the diameter of the disk is 8 mm and the arms are 30 mm long….” Clark separated the two specimens from station 5371 and designated the larger individual, photographed in figures 3, 4, and 9 on plate 79 as the lectotype, USNM E1056 (p. 453). The remaining 15 specimens in Table 31 are paralectotypes.

TABLE 31.—Ophiozonella subtilis; material listed in Koehler 1922.

Appendix

Albatross Station List

(n.r. = depth not recorded in log; – = no seconds reading for latitudes or longitudes provided in Albatross station log.)

Literature Cited

Downey, M.E.

1969.   atalog of Recent Ophiuroid Type Specimens in Major Collections in the United States. United States National Museum Bulletin, 293: 239 pages.

Koehler, R.

1904.   Ophiures de l'Expedition du Soboga, 1: Ophiures de mer profunde. 176 pages. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

1922.   Ophiurans of the Philippine Seas and Adjacent Waters. In Contributions to the Biology of the Philippine Archipelago and Adjacent Regions. United States National Museum Bulletin, 100(5): x + 486, 103 plates.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)

1985.   International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Edition 3. Adopted by the 20th General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences. 338 pages. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Unites States Bureau of Fisheries (USBF)

1907.   Dredging and Hydrographic Records of the U.S. Fisheries Steamer Albatross for 1906. Bureau of Fisheries Document, 621:50 pages.

1910.   Dredging and Hydrographic Records of the U.S. Fisheries Steamer Albatross during the Philippine Expedition, 1907–1910. Bureau of Fisheries Document, 741:97 pages.

Index

agitata, Amphiura, 6

armatum, Ophiomusium, 9

bellax, Ophiothrix, 2

benigna, Ophiacantha, 2

canaliculata, Amphiophiura, 2

commutata, Amphiura, 5

conductus, Amphioplus, 2

confinis, Ophiophrixus, 3

crassipes, Neoplax, 2, 3

cumulata, Ophiothrix, 8

debita, Amphiodia, 6

deceptor, Ophiothrix, 2

dejecta, Amphiura, 2, 6

deficiens, Astrothamnus, 2

definita, Ophiactis, 7

demissa, Amphiura, 2

discrepans, Ophiomedea, 2

dives, Ophiomitra, 4

excavatus, Ophiurothamnus, 4

exilis, Ophiomitrella, 2

facetum, Ophiomusium, 9, 10

facundum, Ophiomusium, 10

fastigiata, Amphiophiura, 2

fimbriatum, Ophiomusium, 2

fluctuans, Ophiura, 9

fugiens, Ophiocanops, 2

funesta, Ophiogymna, 8

fusca, Ophiomaia, 2

globata, Ophioplinthaca, 5

graphica, Ophiacantha, 2

gratum, Ophiopteron, 2

hastata, Ophioplinthaca, 2

impotens, Ophiomusium, 2

intorta, Ophiobyrsella, 2

koreana, Ophiothrix, 8

legata, Ophiacantha, 2

legatus, Amphioplus, 2

ligatum, Ophiomusium, 10

loripes, Amphipholis, 2

lucidus, Amphioplus, 6

luctator, Amphioplus, 6

marginata, Ophioripa, 2, 4

mitescens, Ophiura, 2

morio, Ophiomusium, 2

multispina, Amphilimna, 7

nugator, Ophioripa, 2, 4, 5

obscura, Ophiozonoida, 2

pacata, Ophiacantha, 2

pavida, Ophiothrix, 2

planulatus, Ophiopyrgus, 2

prostrata, Ophiothrix, 2

punctata, Ophiogema, 3

quinquespinosa, Ophiarachna, 2

remittens, Amphilepis, 2

sagittata, Ophiomitrella, 4

severa, Ophiacantha, 3

signata, Ophiothrix, 2

singularis, Ophiocopa, 3

spatulifera, Amphiophiura, 9

spatulifera, Ophiotreta, 2

spinulosum, Ophiomusium, 11

sterilis, Stegophiura, 9

subjecta, Ophiomitrella, 4

subtilis, Ophiozonella, 11

suspectus, Ophiophthalmus, 2

tecta, Cryptopelta, 2

tertium, Ophiotrema, 2

uncinatus, Ophiodictys, 2

valens, Ophiopallas, 2

vexator, Ophiocentrus, 7

REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION

Manuscripts intended for series publication receive substantive review (conducted by their originating Smithsonian museums or offices) and are submitted to the Smithsonian Institution Press with Form SI-36, which must show the approval of the appropriate authority designated by the sponsoring organizational unit. Requests for special treatment—use of color, foldouts, case-bound covers, etc.—require, on the same form, the added approval of the sponsoring authority.

Review of manuscripts and art by the Press for requirements of series format and style, completeness and clarity of copy, and arrangement of all material, as outlined below, will govern, within the judgment of the Press, acceptance or rejection of manuscripts and art.

Copy must be prepared on typewriter or word processor, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper (not erasable), with 1″ margins, submitted as ribbon copy (not carbon or xerox), in loose sheets (not stapled or bound), and accompanied by original art. Minimum acceptable length is 30 pages.

Front matter (preceding the text) should include: title page with only title and author and no other information, abstract page with author, title, series, etc., following the established format; table of contents with indents reflecting the hierarchy of heads in the paper; also, foreword and/or preface, if appropriate.

First page of text should carry the title and author at the top of the page; second page should have only the author's name and professional mailing address, to be used as an unnumbered footnote on the first page of printed text.

Center heads of whatever level should be typed with initial caps of major words, with extra space above and below the head, but no other preparation (such as all caps or underline, except for the underline necessary for generic and specific epithets). Run-in paragraph heads should use period/dashes or colons as necessary.

Tabulations within text (lists of data, often in parallel columns) can be typed on the text page where they occur, but they should not contain rules or numbered table captions.

Formal tables (numbered, with captions, boxheads, stubs, rules) should be submitted as carefully typed, double-spaced copy separate from the text; they will be typeset unless otherwise requested. If camera-copy use is anticipated, do not draw rules on manuscript copy.

Taxonomic keys in natural history papers should use the aligned-couplet form for zoology and may use the multi-level indent form for botany. If cross referencing is required between key and text, do not include page references within the key, but number the keyed-out taxa, using the same numbers with their corresponding heads in the text.

Synonymy in zoology must use the short form (taxon, author, year:page), with full reference at the end of the paper under “Literature Cited.” For botany, the long form (taxon, author, abbreviated journal or book title, volume, page, year, with no reference in “Literature Cited”) is optional.

Text-reference system (author, year:page used within the text, with full citation in “Literature Cited” at the end of the text) must be used in place of bibliographic footnotes in all Contributions Series and is strongly recommended in the Studies Series: “(Jones. 1910:122)” or “…Jones (1910:122).” If bibliographic footnotes are required, use the short form (author, brief title, page) with the full citation in the bibliography.

Footnotes, when few in number, whether annotative or bibliographic, should be typed on separate sheets and inserted immediately after the text pages on which the references occur. Extensive notes must be gathered together and placed at the end of the text in a notes section.

Bibliography, depending upon use, is termed “Literature Cited,” “References,” or “Bibliography.” Spell out titles of books, articles, journals, and monographic series. For book and article titles use sentence-style capitalization according to the rules of the language employed (exception: capitalize all major words in English). For journal and series titles, capitalize the initial word and all subsequent words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. Transliterate languages that use a non-Roman alphabet according to the Library of Congress system. Underline (for italics) titles of journals and series and titles of books that are not part of a series. Use the parentheses/colon system for volume (number): pagination: “10(2):5–9.” For alignment and arrangement of elements, follow the format of recent publications in the series for which the manuscript is intended. Guidelines for preparing bibliography may be secured from Series Section, SI Press.

Legends for illustrations must be submitted at the end of the manuscript, with as many legends typed, double-spaced, to a page as convenient.

Illustrations must be submitted as original art (not copies) accompanying, but separate from, the manuscript. Guidelines for preparing art may be secured from Series Section, SI Press. All types of illustrations (photographs, line drawings, maps, etc.) may be intermixed throughout the printed text. They should be termed Figures and should be numbered consecutively as they will appear in the monograph. If several illustrations are treated as components of a single composite figure, they should be designated by lowercase italic letters on the illustration; also, in the legend and in text references the italic letters (underlined in copy) should be used: “Figure 9b.” Illustrations that are intended to follow the printed text may be termed Plates, and any components should be similarly lettered and referenced: “Plate 9b.” Keys to any symbols within an illustration should appear on the art rather than in the legend.

Some points of style: Do not use periods after such abbreviations as “mm, ft, USNM, NNE.” Spell out numbers “one” through “nine” in expository text, but use digits in all other cases if possible. Use of the metric system of measurement is preferable; where use of the English system is unavoidable, supply metric equivalents in parentheses. Use the decimal system for precise measurements and relationships, common fractions for approximations. Use day/month/year sequence for dates: “9 April 1976.” For months in tabular listings or data sections, use three-letter abbreviations with no periods: “Jan, Mar, Jun,” etc. Omit space between initials of a personal name: “J.B. Jones.”

Arrange and paginate sequentially every sheet of manuscript in the following order: (1) title page, (2) abstract, (3) contents, (4) foreword and/or preface, (5) text, (6) appendixes, (7) notes section, (8) glossary, (9) bibliography, (10) legends, (11) tables. Index copy may be submitted at page proof stage, but plans for an index should be indicated when manuscript is submitted.