mes
Sree el
tease siten

“Are

is
Dew
“2 oti
oa}

“4b,
eer

als

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/danishingolfex4apt1 a2daniuoft

THE DANISH
foro rer XP EDI LION,
VOL. IV a.

BY

THE DIRECTION OF THE ZOOLOGICAL MUSEUM OF THE UNIVERSITY.

TS

COPENHAGEN.
H. HAGERUP.

PRINTED BY BIANCO LUNO A/S

1903-1907.

Contents of Vol. IV a.

I. Ta. Mortensen: Echinoidea, I, p. 1-193 (21 plates), 1903.

II. Tu. Mortensen: Echinoidea, II, p. 1-200 (19 plates), 1907,

i i’ frabiestar

2a) my eee (A) )\apent oe
gol) eee POFRT. <) Dee:

THE DANISH INGOLF-EXPEDITION.

VOLUME IV.
1.

IE CoB INOu Saves

(PART 1)

BY

TH. MORTENSEN.

WILK 27 PLATES AND 12-FIGURES IN THE TEXT.

TRANSLATED BY TORBEN LUNDBECK.
ap
}
MA
>) d
fk Ree
Stix N/
aR
an N

COPENHAGEN.
PRINTED BY. BIANCO LUNO.

1903.

TS Py

- 5
- a
:
wi
a

Me

( ; ‘ @ x es dd }

Ready from the Press J

4 ac Soe

CONTENTS.

MELO Gt O rile rar yeytessr ee stapes aeee eyes yi sy Yescts.ord ds eicreay venveye
On generic and specific Characters in the Echinoids....
Fam. Cidaride......

Diagnoses of the genera of the Fam. Cidaride

Dorocidaris papillata (Leske)
Ciddnsgattinism Phil errs. ci nrs-icie ste nieieeine cicis > ie

Stereocidaris) insolfiiana nySp:.)/2442 se o--\- cies nes +

Porocidaris purpurata Wyv. Thomson................
Table of the Cidarids occurring in the northern Atlantic
and the Mediterranean

Fam. Echinothuride...

Diagnoses of the genera of the Fam. Echinothuride. ...

Phormosoma placenta Wyy. Thomson

Calveria hystrix Wyv. Thomson ...

Arzeosoma fenestratum (Wyy. Thomson) .

Sperosoma), Grimaldi Koehler... 093 .5..62 0222s eee
Tromikosoma) Koehler nig. 0-Sp:. 4-.000005stn sess
Table of the Echinothurids occurring in the northern

Atlantic

Fam. Temnopleuride

Hypsiechinus coronatus n.g., n. sp.

Echinoidea.
Page
1. | On the Fam. Echinometrade Gray and the Subfam. Tripl-
||| echinidaecAlyAl passa. teen netics eee ‘
11. | Diagnoses of the Fam. Stomopneustide, Echinidz, Toxo-
28. | pneustidee and Echinometride, with their subfamilies
21 anduGenerape on sncrticeci canes
31.
35. Ram> chinidge..2 fee se
38. Subfam. Parechinine ............
ql. Parechinus miliaris (Miill.)
Subfam. Echininze
42 KEchinus elegans Diib. Kor..
||
76 | — Alexandri Dan. Kor.
= attinisenisprees cements ee
62. P
_ acutus sam kee her ancie ee rier
66.
| — esculentus L.
Jo. | :
| Fam. Toxopneustide .....
2. :
7 Subfam. Strongylocentrotine.
75: Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis . . .
78. | Table of the Echinids of the Families Echinide and Toxo-
pneustidee occurring in the northern Atlantic and the
So. | Mediterranean’ ...5- 22.6 -cc ae
81. | Appendix ...
86. | Bibliography

Page

go.

183.

Cr a ee ead cae
it. 0d Ge

iments ou. «is mae
een SUD «6a -

Echinoidea.

By

Th. Mortensen.

hg present work forms the first part of a planned revision comprising all the arctic Echinoderms,
excepting the Holothurioidea. The basis of the work is formed by the rich material of the
Ingolf-Expedition together with the large collections of arctic Echinoderms found at our Zoological
Museum from earlier expeditions. To the arctic fauna all the species are referred which are found in
the Norwegian Sea, the Greenland Sea, the Denmark Strait, and at the coast of West-Greenland, as
also in the White Sea and the Polar Sea with the Bering Strait. Of forms that are only found south
of the large ridge between Greenland and Iceland, and between Iceland and the Farée Islands, only
such as have been taken by the Ingolf-Expedition, have been included in the work.

During the examination of the material the absolute necessity of taking into consideration also
other more or less nearly related forms soon made itself felt. By and by I became aware of the fact
that the classification hitherto used with regard to the families treated of here, was quite erroneous,
and so I have sought to include into the examination as many forms as possible in order to be able
to give the new classification that had to be made, so broad a base as possible. Inspector G. M. R.
Levinsen placed the whole rich collection of Echinoids of the museum at my disposal with the
greatest readiness; but as far from all species and genera are represented in this collection, I have
applied to several foreign naturalists, and have everywhere been met with the most obliging kindness
and friendliness, so that I have been enabled to examine almost all known genera and species com-
prised in the groups treated of here.

The following gentlemen have sent me Echinoids on loan or in exchange: Dr. Appelldéf
(the Museum of Bergen), Prof. F. Jeffr. Bell (British Museum), Prof. E. v. Beneden (Liege), Prof.
Collett (Christiania), Prof. Déderlein (Strassburg), Conservator J. Grieg (the Museum of Bergen),
Prof. Koehler (Lyons), Prof. P. de Loriol (Genéve), Prof. E. v. Marenzeller (Vienna), Geh.rath,
Prof. E. v. Martens (Berlin), Geh.rath, Prof. K. Mobius (Berlin), Prof. Monticelli (Naples), Prof. P.
Pallary (Oran), Prof. G. Pfeffer (Hamburg), Prof. R. Rathbun (U.S. National Museum), Prof.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. I

ECHINOIDEA. I.

nN

d’Arcy Thompson (Dundee). By this present I beg to offer my sincerest thanks to all these
gentlemen. Finally I had occasion for a short stay at the British Museum in August 1gor. By the
genial friendliness of Prof. Bell I was enabled to examine a great many forms, especially original
specimens from the Challenger-Expedition. It will appear throughout my work, that this stay has been
of material importance to me, and my best thanks are due to Prof. Bell for his liberality. Still I have

to thank Dr. F. A. Bather (British Museum) for his excellent assistance in several literary questions.

Copenhagen, January Igo2.

The Author.

Loin d’étre nuisible aux vrais progrés de la science,
cette multiplication des genres, lorsquwils sont établis sur
des caractéres précis, ne saurait avoir d’autre effet que de
rapprocher de plus en plus les espéces, que leurs caractéres
naturels lient le plus étroitement. Cest 1a le grand avantage
des petits genres, et cet avantage est surtout sensible dans
les familles, dont toutes les espéces se ressemblent par leur
aspect extérieur et par l'ensemble de leurs caractéres.

L. Agassiz.

On generic and specific Characters in the Echinoids.

Everybody who has studied Echinoids, will have felt a considerable difficulty in recognising many
of the genera, at all events of the regular Kchinoids. Such was, at any rate, my case at the commen-
cement of my researches. I studied the excellent collection of these animals found in our museum,
and found it to be more and more hopeless. A great many genera were exhibited, as: Lchznws,
Psammechinus, Toxopneustes, Hipponoé, Boletia, Psilechinus, Lytechinus, Loxechinus, etc.; but it seemed
to be impossible to discover the characters on which they were established, whether the naked tests,
or specimens that had kept the spines, were examined. And the literature did not contribute very
much to clear up the question. To be sure, some of these names (— as it will be seen, partly
unjustly --) appeared to be synonyms; but nevertheless the other genera were not much _ better
characterized. We learned through long descriptions that the spines were thick or thin, few and scat-
tered, or many and closely packed; that the tubercles might be small or large, and that they might
be placed in more or less regular series, etc. — altogether things easily enough seen, but so relative,
that it was impossible to get any any firm hold. It was almost enough to drive one to despair.

Still a faint hope was left. Might not the difficulty be in the literature, and the animals them-
selves in reality be less intractable? A profound and careful attempt at penetrating into the mysteries
of the relationship of the Echinoids was planned, and the plan was the simple, but clear one: to let
literature alone for the present, while the animals were studied thoroughly. Everything had to be
examined that might in any way be supposed to show systematic characters: the test, the spines,
the tube-feet, the pedicellariz, the spicules, the spheeridiz, ete. The beginning was to be made
with the “chznus-species. This choice seemed to be the best one, as these species have hitherto been
especially notorious for their difficulty, and a very rich material of them is found in the museum of
Copenhagen. The result was excellent. The animals proved to be very tractable, the species to be
very well characterized (with a few exceptions). The difficulties arise from the literature containing
numberless bad descriptions. And what a confusion is reigning in the literature with regard to
the names. Almost every species must drag along with it a lot of synonyms, not only specific syno-
nyms, but also generic ones. Several species have by and by been referred to a whole series of different
genera, to end at last as a separate genus, as badly characterized as most of the other genera. To
name only one instance: The genuine Psammechinus-species: variegatus (Lamk.) and semztuberculatus
(Val.) have by and by been referred to the following genera: Echinus, Lytechinus, Schizechinus, Toxo-
pneustes, but only rarely, in recent times not at all, to the genus to which they decidedly belong.
On the other hand the following extraneous species have been referred to Psammechinus: Echinus
norvegicus, magellanicus, miliaris, microtuberculatus, angulosus, Strongylocentrotus Gaimardi, intermedius,

1?

4 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Spherechinus pulcherrimus, Evechinus chloroticus, Echinostrephus molare. — This instance may be
taken as a significant illustration of the generic descriptions. Or should it be necessary also to recall
the genera of Cidarids?

That under such circumstances erroneous determinations have been frequent, is not to be
wondered at. I have had occasion to substantiate several (far too many!) cases, and such cases too
where the greatest authorities have been responsible for the determination. We ought therefore to be
very cautious in using the existing statements. with regard to the geographical distribution of
these forms.

The characters that have hitherto chiefly been used for the distinguishing between the genera
and species, are the following: the pores, the spines, the tubercles, the mouth-slits, the lining of the
buccal membrane with larger or smaller plates, and the calycinal area. All these structures may
give excellent characters, and, of course, they are always to be taken into consideration. But most
frequently they are so relative, that it is exceedingly difficult or impossible by means of these
structures to decide whether a specimen in hand belongs to one species or another. Such is
especially the case when the question is of the position of the tubercles; it may be simply
irritating to read the descriptions of these in different species that are to be compared, and often the
result falls very short of the exertion to get a clear view of the descriptions. To this may be added
that the number, size, and position of the tubercles vary very much with age. With regard to the
pores, their number and mutual position is no absolutely reliable character either. That in species
with. many pairs of pores their number increases with age is a well-known fact. The young S¢rongy-
locentrotus drobachiensis has only three pairs of pores (Lovén 250); «Strongylocentrotus» lividus has
only 3 pairs of pores in the lower ambulacral plates; Echinostrephus has 2—4 pairs of pores, oftenest
3 pairs ete.

By these researches the pedicellariee and spicules proved to be of very great systematic
importance; they give the most excellent characters we may want. To be sure, this fact is no new
discovery. It has long been known that these organs and structures were more or less differently
constructed in the different species and genera; much has been written about this fact, and a great
many figures have been published. But nevertheless the fact has never been fully utilised.

The history of the pedicellarize is highly interesting; scarcely many zoological objects will be
able to vie with these organs with regard to the number of interpretations. From parasites to
embryos, and even to vertebrates, and back again to parasites their history passes, until they are
generally acknowledged to be what they really are: organs forming integral parts of the animal.
v. Uexkull has given an excellent account of their history (406), and so there is no reason to give
it here again. I shall only here note a few less important treatises, not mentioned by v. Uexkiill, viz.
by Duncan (130), Groom (175), and Stewart (381). A little note by Troschel (Verhandl. d. natur-
hist. Vereins d. preuss. Rheinl. u. Westphalen. 1870 p. 137) is also to be mentioned for the sake of
completeness; it contains nothing new.

The histological structure of the pedicellarize has of late years been very carefully studied,
especially by Foettinger (155) Hamann (184), Sladen (366), Prouho (327), and v. Uexkiill (406).

The most interesting ones in this respect are the globiferous pedicellarie, which have proved to be

ECHINOIDEA. I. c

poison-apparatus of a very peculiar and complicated structure with sensitive cilia, poison-glands ete.
Only a single point seems hitherto not to have been fully understood, viz. how the poison gland
opens through the large tooth at the end of each of the three valves forming the skeleton of the head
of the pedicellaria. Perrier') thinks that in some there is a large «lacune mediane» in the end-tooth,
in others he finds two terminal teeth beside each other. The latter fact is also stated by Valentin?)
with regard to «Strongylocentrotus» lividus. Sladen (366, p. 105) describes the end-tooth as «channelled
and presenting the appearance of two or more lateral lamella merged together to form the tip or
tooth-like fang». Stewart alone seems to have seen the fact correctly; he says (381, p. gto) of the
globiferous pedicellarize in Lchinostrephus: «The jaw terminates in a long, deeply grooved fang; the
groove, which is almost converted into a canal by the meeting of its margins, opening at a point near,
but never at the tip on the external or distal surface». But this correct description seems to have
been overlooked. Neither seems the most recent author on this subject, v. Uexkiill, to have under-
stood the structure correctly, although he is not much mistaken. He says (op. cit. p. 364): «Die Ver-
dickung (the upper end of the blade where the end-tooth issues) weisst jederseits eine lingliche Offnung
auf, von der aus je ein Canal ins Innere tritt. Die beiden Candle vereinigen sich in der Mittellinie
zum unpaaren Giftcanal, der bis nahe an die Spitze des Endhakens lauft um hier dorsal zu miinden.
Der Endhaken zeigt am 4ussersten Ende noch eine aufgesetzte feinste Spitze». According to this
description v. Uexkitll seems to think that the poison-canal runs quite inside the tooth, which
would thus be tubular.

An essential reason why the authors have not hitherto succeeded in reaching the correct under-
standing, is no doubt that Spherechinus granularis has especially been used as the subject of exami-
nation, and in this species the structure of the tooth is only to be seen with some difficulty. If, on
the other hand, an Achinus or a Psammechinus is used, the structure is easily seen, and when first it
is understood, it is also easily seen that the pedicellarize of Spherechinus are in reality constructed in
the same way. — When the fang is viewed from above, the poison-canal is seen to be an open
groove on the upper surface of the fang (Pl. XVII, Fig. 15), the whole reminding of the
poison-fangs in the opistoglypha. As mentioned by vy. Uexkiill, the canal runs out a little before the
point; to speak of «eine aufgesetzte Spitze» is misleading. (In the Cidaridz the structure of the globi-
ferous pedicellarize is quite different, as described below.)

As far as I know there is in literature next to no more exact accounts of the development of
the pedicellarize of the Echinoids3). Only Prouho (327) gives some excellent figures of the first
stages of development, but only of the histology; the development of the calcareous skeleton is not
mentioned. Agassiz, in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea (8) Pl. Il, Fig. 16, gives some figures of deve-
lopmental stages of pedicellarie in Gonzocidaris canaliculata; but only the outer contour is given, and
mention is made neither of the histology nor of the calcareous skeleton. No further direct observa-

tions seem to be found. — Generally, the small pedicellarie have been regarded as developmental

1) Recherches sur les Pédicellaires et les Ambulacres des Astéries et des Oursins. Ann. Sc. Nat. 5. Sér. XII—NIII. 1869—7o.
2) Anatomie du genre Echinus. (Agassiz: Monographies d’Echinodermes.) 1542.
3) On the development of the pedicellariz in Asteroidea Agassiz gives some informations. (Rev. of Echini IV.)

6 ECHINOIDEA. I.

stages of the large ones of the same kind. Duvernoy') even thinks all the different kinds of pedicel-
larie to be developmental stages of a single, definitive form, pedic. tridens. Valentin (Op. cit. p. 49)
writes of the triphyllous pedicellarize: «Je n’ai pu m’assurer si ce sont des pédicellaires d’une espéce
particuliére, ou s’ils ne sont que le jeune Age des pédicellaires ophicephales», and Agassiz, in «Rev.
of. Ech.» p. 665, says: «<in Echinometra there is no doubt these trifoliate pedicellariz are only the
younger stages of the tridactyle forms». Scarcely any student of these forms will now-a-days suppose
one form of pedicellarie to be a developmental stage of the other. On the other hand it must be
admitted that at a first glance the small pedicellarie might appear to be developmental stages of the
larger ones of the same kind. A little reflection, however, will immediately show the improbability
of this supposition; what re-arrangements were to take place in the calcareous mass to make a small
fully formed pedicellaria become a large one! — Pedicellariz are not rarely found that seem either
to be only half-formed, or half-decomposed. The possibility that they might be somewhat decomposed,
because the preserving fluid had become acid, has to the dismissed at once, — if this were the case the
lime would be corroded everywhere, and not only the outer edge be decomposed. D6derlein (116)
has seen and figured such half-formed pedicellarize of Stereocidaris grandis and «Letocidaris» verticillata,
and regards them as a separate kind. «Es scheint noch eine vierte Form von Pedicellarien bei den
Cidariden zu geben, von der ich aber bisher nur einige isolierte Klappen gesehen habe, die sich auf
Praparaten ganz vereinzelt neben den anderen Formen fanden. Diese «korbférmigen» Klappen zeigen
eine sehr weite, bauchige Kammer, die am oberen Theil in einer sehr grossen Offnung miindet; diese
Offnung zeigt einfache diinne und etwas gekerbte Rinder; von Zihnelung u. dgl. ist keine Spur vor-
handen. Solche Pedicellarien erreichen bei C. grandis die Grésse und die aussere Gestalt der dick-
k6pfigen Form, sie sind dagegen sehr klein bei Z. verticillata; bei anderen Arten kenne ich sie nicht,
auch ihren Standort konnte ich nicht entdecken» (op. cit. p. 33). For a long time I had no clear under-
standing myself how to interpret this form, until I found some specimens of Phormosoma placenta
possessing such structures in large numbers and in different sizes, and then there was no doubt that
they are developmental stages of pedicellariz. On Pl. XII, figs. 15, 24, 30, 38 the development of a
triphyllous pedicellaria is given. The part first formed is the basal part of the three valves and the
stalk (its upper end); they seem to appear contemporaneously. From the basal part then the blade
grows up, and new calcareous particles being constantly added all round, it grows in breadth and
height; the apophysis is early formed. The figures give, better than a long description, an idea of
the way in which the growth takes place. Where a distinct margin is formed the growth is com-
pleted. The margin is first formed below when the definitive breadth has been reached, and is then
continued towards the upper end. A large pedicellaria is begun with a broad base, a little one with

a narrow base. No growth takes place when a coherent margin has been formed all

round the valve. — On Pl. XII, figs. q—5 is shown a developmental stage of a large tridentate
pedicellaria. — I have found such stages of development in most of the species I have examined.

Already Duvernoy (op. cit.) and W. B. Herapath?) lay stress upon the fact that the pedi-

') Mémoire sur l’analogie de composition et sur quelques points de l'organisation des Echinodermes. Mém, de !’Inst.
de France. XX. 1849. p. 611.
2) On the Pedicellariz of the Echinodermata. Quart. Journ. micr. Se. (N. S.) V. 1865. p. 175—84. Pls. IV—V.

ECHINOIDEA, I.

a |

cellarize of the Echinoids give good specific characters. Stewart, Koehler, Diéderlein, Wyv.
Thomson, a. 0, but especially Perrier and Agassiz have later described pedicellariz of a great
many different Echinoids, and have shown that here an immense richness in forms is found, and that
they give characters with regard as well to families, as to genera and species. Nevertheless the pedi-
cellarize have only a few times (in Wyv. Thomson’s classical work on the «Porcupine»-Echinoids
(395) and Déderleins as excellent work on the Cidarids (116)) been treated as being of importance in
the systematic works; generally they have only been mentioned as a matter of small importance beside
the description proper, and often no attention at all has been paid to them. Rarely all the different
forms of pedicellariz in a species are described, and still less in all species of the same genus; of one
species an ophicephalous and a tridentate pedicellaria is figured, of another a valve of a globiferous one,
of a third perhaps none at all, etc. In this way, of course, we shall never get a clear understanding
of the systematic characters which may be found in these small organs. The pedicellariz in
effect give absolutely excellent systematic characters, sometimes only specific characters,
sometimes also generic ones.

The use of the pedicellariz in classification is attended with great advantages; they do not
change their form with age, but are in the newly metamorphosed Echinoid of the same form as in
the grown one, only somewhat smaller in the small specimens. It is therefore (oftenest) possible, by
means of the pedicellariz, easily to determine quite small Echinoids with absolute certainty — at
all events as to genus. Another advantage is that it is not necessary to remove the spines in order
to get a view of the tubercles, the specimens have not to be destroyed for the sake of determination.

It may, perhaps, seem unreasonable to lay so much stress, as is done here, on so minute fea-
tures as the pedicellarize — to use them for the characterizing of as well species as genera and
families. But when it proves to be a real fact that these minute features give excellent, constant
characters, it may be taken to be reasonable to use them without regard to their being small or
large. Surely any student of Echinoids will also feel it as a great advantage not to be obliged to be
contented with all these relativities, as the length and number of the spines, the size of the
tubercles, the form of the test etc. To all these things, of course, regard must always be paid, and
so has also been done here, as far as the material has permitted. But the pedicellariz are, at least,
as important. I can completely subscribe the expressions of Stewart (381 p. 912): «It seems to me
most desirable that minute, and even apparently trivial, features should be given in the descriptions of
species, and that when this is more done, we may find affinities between forms, we should otherwise
not suspect, and be enabled by the examination of even an ambulacral tube or pedicellaria etc. to
determine a species without the denudation of portions of the corona, which is sometimes not
desirable».

The supposition by Stewart that by an examination of the pedicellariz etc. we might find a
closer relation between forms not otherwise regarded as related, has been amply justified by these
researches, even to so high a degree that the classification hitherto used proves to be quite a
failure (with regard to the groups treated of here). A good proof of the correctness of the new classi-
fication given here, which has been found especially by the examination of the pedicellarie, is found

in the fact that forms with the same kind of pedicellariz also agree in other important respects. To

8 ECHINOIDEA. I.

be sure, the material has not been sufficient for a thorough examination of all characters with regard
to some groups (especially the Cidarids), but I think that from the results found elsewhere we shall
be justified in supposing that it will appear everywhere to be a fact that forms with the same kind
of pedicellarize in reality belong to the same natural group.

It is a serious drawback that the pedicellariz cannot be used in the classification of the fossil
Echinoids. Groom (175), to be sure, has described the pedicellariz of Pelanechinus corallinus in a
very well preserved state, and it will, no doubt, also be possible to find them in well-preserved speci-
mens of other fossil Echinoids; of course, however, it will always be a rare thing — generally we
have here to be content with the tests (and the spines). These structures also often give excellent
characters, but they are far from being always reliable. The former great incertainty in the determi-
nation of the recent forms of regular Echinoids (and I think it is not much better with regard to the
irregular ones) may be taken to imply that there cannot be any great certainty in the classification
of the fossil forms either.

As is well known, no less than four different kinds of pedicellariz are found in an Zchinws,
viz. globiferous pedicellarize, tridentate, ophicephalous, and triphyllous ones. Of these forms the tri-
phyllous and ophicephalous ones have only very little systematic importance; they are very much alike
in almost all Echini. The tridentate ones give often excellent specific characters; the globiferous ones
are generally very much alike in related species, but show very characteristic differences in the different
genera. Especially the latter form shows many peculiarities. The structure of the blade is highly
different; it may be open or shut, the margins having coalesced on the inside; there may be many or
few teeth along the edge, placed symmetrically or unsymmetrically, or teeth may be quite wanting.
On the other hand no forms are known with more than one end-tooth!). When Perrier (op. cit.)
says that the globiferous pedicellarize in the Echinometrids end in two hooks, one placed a little above
the other, this statement is not quite correct. There is also here only one end-tooth, with the men-
tioned open canal on the upper side; the other one that is placed below the former, is a lateral tooth
with no poison-canal, homologous with the lateral teeth of the pedicellarizee in Achznus. Here thus is
only one unpaired lateral tooth. In SAherechinus, Strongylocentrotus etc. no lateral teeth are found at
all, only a little obliquity is seen towards the end of the blade, a little process on one side, perhaps a
reminiscence of the unpaired lateral tooth in the Echinometrids. — Some (Strongylocentrotus) have a
long, muscular neck between the stalk and the head; in most forms the head is placed directly on
the end of the stalk. Even the structure of the stalk is very different, in some forms it is a per-
forated tube, in others some thin calcareous threads, irregularly connected by short cross-beams, or it
may even be a single thin calcareous thread. Some forms have large mucous glands on the stalk.
In the Cidarids the stalk is very peculiar, with an upper thin part and a lower thick one; at the
transition between the two parts a limb of projecting calcareous ridges is often seen.

The mentioned four different kinds of pedicellariz are found in the old families Zchinide and
Echinometrade. In the Echinothurids globiferous pedicellariz are only found in a single genus
(Hapalosoma); they are highly peculiar (Pl. XIII, Figs. 20, 24, 25), obviously very primitive. The
calcareous skeleton consists of three simple rods lying between the three (mucous?) glands, each

') Comp. however, the description of the globiferous pedicellaric in Stomopneustes.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 9

of which ends in a fine pore at the end. The rods reach only half-way, the whole thing is coalesced
to the very point; there are no muscles between the basal parts of the valves. In another genus
(Areosoma) a singular kind of pedicellarize are found, the tetradactyle, with four peculiar, very ele-
gantly formed valves. Also in other Echinoids a four-valved pedicellaria may now and then be found,
but only as an abnormity. Ophicephalous pedicellariz') are among the Echinothuridz found in
only a single genus (7romikosoma); on the other hand, triphyllous and tridentate pedicellariz are
found in all of them, and especially the tridentate ones show a great variety of forms, and are of great
systematic importance. In the Cidarids are found tridentate pedicellaria, and another kind occuring
in a large and a small form, of substantially the same structure. They seem to be poison-apparatus
as the globiferous pedicellariz of the Echinidz; but they are of a quite different structure, the gland
being here placed inside the blade, quite surrounded by the calcareous skeleton, while in the Echinidze
it is situated on the outside of the blade. On the inside of the blade, somewhat below the point, there
is a larger or smaller opening («the mouth») in the calcareous skeleton, filled with large cells, richly
provided with cilia (sensitive hairs?). The efferent duct of the secretion of the gland passes up through
the end-tooth, and opens on its surface. How these structures are arranged in forms with no end-tooth
is unknown. The inner opening is of great systematic importance, while the glandular opening itself
scarcely is of any importance in this respect. Perrier (op. cit.) gives these pedicellariz a special name
<Pedicellaires armées». After the discovery of the above described form of globiferous pedicellariz
in the Echinothurids?) there seems to be sufficient reason to take these pedicellariz in the Cidarids
to be homologous with the globiferous pedicellarize of the Echinoids, as has also been done by Stewart
(379) and Prouho (327), so that there is no cause to keep the name given to them by Perrier.
There is still less reason to keep the name «Ped. inermes» for the tridentate pedicellariz of the
Cidarids; there can be no doubt but that they correspond to the tridentate pedicellarize of the other
Echinoids (Prouho (327), Koehler (217)). Hamann (184) regards the small pedicellarize as «a sub-
species of the tridactylous ones». Now it has to be admitted that sometimes it may be rather difficult
to distinguish between these latter and small tridentate pedicellarize; but generally they are very easily
recognised, and there is no doubt that, with regard to structure, they resemble very much the large
globiferous pedicellariz. Where no pronounced difference is found between large and small pedicellaria,
it may in fact be impossible to decide, whether a certain specimen is to be regarded as a large or as
a small form. There seems to be no reason to give a special name to the small pedicellarie; in the
present work they will the mentioned as «small globiferous pedicellarize», — Ophicephalous and triphyl-
lous pedicellariz are not found in the Cidarids.

O. F. Miiller3) has originally given names to the pedicellariz, viz. Pedicellaria globifera,
triphylla, and tridens. These names have not been generally accepted, the reason being especially
that Valentin in his classical monograph on the anatomy of Zchimus has used other appellations:
Pedicellaire gemmiforme, tridactyle, and ophicephale; these names have become the common ones.

Sladen (366) justly maintains that it is incorrect to use these latter names. The figures of Muller

1) What has hitherto been regarded as ophicephalous pedicellariz in the Echinothuride, are in reality triphyllous ones.

2) Also the globiferous pedicellarize in Stomopmeustes seem to form a peculiar type. They have no end-tooth, and
there seems to be no poison gland on the outside of the blade.

3) Zoologia danica. 1788. pag. 16. Tab. XVI.

to

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. I.

IO ECHINOIDEA. I.

are perfectly recognisable, and therefore his names ought to be restored to their rights. The name of
P. triphylla of Muller, however, no doubt includes as well ophicephalous pedicellarize as triphyllous
ones. This name must then be kept for the small form the valves of which resemble clover-leaves,
while Valentin’s name P. ophicephale is kept for the form described by him under this name. —
Hamann (184) uses the name «Globiferen» especially of the pedicellariz where the mucous glands on
the stalk have been so highly developed, that the head has become rudimentary or is even quite
wanting. Thus they, as is also admitted by Hamann himself, are not a peculiar kind of organs,
but only transformed pedicellarize; it may, perhaps, be as well to have a special name for these pedi-
cellariz, but the name of «Globiferee» cannot be restricted to them, as has also been observed by
Duncan (130). It is, in reality, contrary to all common practice not to use the names of Miller.
The reason for keeping Valentin’s names given by Geddes and Beddard (163): «both on account
of their general acceptance and because they were the first names applied to pedicellarize after the
determination of their real nature; Mtiller’s nomenclature refers to pedicellariz as a genus of para-
sitic animals», is not sufficient for a disregarding of the common rules of priority. Accordingly the

names that ought to be used, are the following:

| Pedic. gemmiforme Valentin, Perrier.
Globiferous pedicellaria — Pedicellaria globifera Miller = 4 P.armé Perrier (in the Cidarids).
| «Globiferen» Hamann.

{ P.tridactyle Valentin ete.

Tridentate - tridens = — ; ely i eaxyl
\ P.inerme Perrier (in the Cidarids).
; : 3 { P. triphylla Muller pro parte.
Ophicephalous — — - ophiocephala Valentin = :
\ P. buceale V alentin, Hamann.
Triphyllous triphylla Miller — P. trifolié Perrier.

To facilitate the understanding of the descriptions in the following, figures are annexed
showing a single valve of each of the four kinds of pedicellarize together with the names used for
the separate parts.

To be able to study the pedicellarize, especially the calcareous skeleton, which is of particular
importance for the classification, they must necessarily be treated carefully. On being boiled in
a not too strong solution of potash the separate pieces of the skeleton may easily be isolated, and no
very great technical skill is necessary to be able to make preparations in Canada balsam of these
pieces. (They cannot be kept in glycerine, as it resolves the lime). Accordingly I can in no way
subscribe to the opinion of Pomel that the pedicellariz only with difficulty can be used for the
classification, because «leur ténuité en rend l’étude peu pratique» (324 p. 13).

Also the spicules yield good systematic characters, even if they are not, in this respect, equal to
the pedicellarie. They only rarely yield specific characters, and are oftenest very similar in the sepa-
rate genera of the same family, but they may yield excellent family characters. They may be
of a simple C-shape («bihamate») — the most common form — or a little branched in both ends
(Strongylocentrotus), or pointed in both ends, and with one branch or a couple of small branches in

the middle, «biacerate» (Parasalenia, Anthocidaris); in Spherechinus and especially in Toxopneustes and

ECHINOIDEA. I. Il

Tripneustes they are dump-bell-shaped, and in many genera they are irregular, perforated calcareous
plates. Perrier (op.cit.) and especially Stewart") have figured the spicules of many Echinoids; but
they have not, any more than the pedicellaria, hitherto been of any importance in the classification.

The sphzridia do not appear to show such differences in structure that they may yield system-
atic characters. On the other hand the structure of the spines is of no small systematic importance,

as especially shown by Mackintosh (264—265), and they are never to be passed by in the descrip-

Fig. 2. Fig. 3.

Fig. 1. Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Parechinus miliaris (MUlL)

— 2. — - an ophicephalous pedicellaria of Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis (O. F. Mill.)
— 3. — - a triphyllous pedicellaria of Parechinus miliaris.

— 4. — - a tridentate pedicellaria of Strongyloc. drobachiensis.

In all the figures a. means the apophysis, 4. the basal part, 4/. the blade, e.¢. the end-tooth, s.¢. lateral teeth, /. the articular surface.

tions — as indeed nothing that may be of systematic importance. Above all, the most easily acces-
sible and most reliable characters, viz. the pedicellarie and spicules, ought never to be omitted in

systematic descriptions of Echinoids.

Fam. Cidaride.

With regard to the classification of the Cidarids, all authors seem to agree in only one thing,

viz. that all attempts made hitherto at giving a natural limitation to the genera have failed. «Every

1) On the Spicula of the Regular Echinoidea. Transact. Linn. Soc. London. XXV. 1865. p. 365—71I. Pl. 47—50.

is}

12 ECHINOIDEA. L

writer upon the classification of the Echinoidea since Desor has complained of the unsatisfactory
attempts of some of the most distinguished authorities to subdivide the genus Cidaris... The divisions
were made upon very unimportant external characters, and subsequent research has proved that these
structures, the variations of which led them to be considered of good diagnostic value, are of no
physiological importance» (Duncan (132 p.29)). In the excellent principal work on the Cidarids,
Déderlein’s «Die japanischen Seeigel» (116) he says (p. 35): «Eine wirklich befriedigende Gruppierung
der lebenden und fossilen Cidariden in Gattungen und Untergattungen ist bisher eine ungeléste Auf
gabe gewesen und wird es wohl noch lange bleiben». And then follows, to boot, a remark, anything
but encouraging to a systematist, that «es ist durchaus nicht zu erwarten, dass die Abgrenzung der
Gruppen bei zunehmender Kenntniss eine scharfere werde». — Nevertheless I shall here make an
attempt to solve the problem: the classification of the Cidarids.

Agassiz in his «Revision of Echini» keeps the genera: Cidaris, Dorocidaris, Phyllacanthus,
Stephanocidaris, Porocidaris, and Goniocidarts; Dorocidarts and Phyllacanthus, however, are more nearly
regarded as subgenera under Czdaris, what is also especially remarked later, in the «Challenger»-
Echinoids (8 p. 33). They are here further defined in the following way: «Dorocidaris would include
all forms with narrow ambulacral areas and long slender, serrated spines, while Phyllacanthus would
include species with broad ambulacral areas, having the poriferous zones joined by a furrow more or
less distinct; while Czdav7s proper would be restricted to species, in which the pores of the poriferous
zone are not so connected». Wyville Thomson (395 p.772) among the recent Kchinoids only
acknowledges the genera C7darzs, Porocidaris, and «possibly» Gonzocidaris. Pomel (324) divides the
Cidarids into three subfamilies, viz. des Crdariens with the genus Hucidaris (with «trois especes vivantes»,
none of which are mentioned) as the only recent representative; /es Gonzocidariens with the recent
genera Goniocidaris and Dorocidaris; and les Rhabdocidariens with the genera Phyllacanthus (with the
subgenus Stephanocidaris), Letocidaris and Porocidaris. The genus Schlemitzia Studer is supposed to
be a Khabdocidaris, consequently also to belong to this subfamily. Duncan (132) only admits the
genus Crdaris with the subgenus Gonzocidaris; the other earlier genera are only classed as «divisions».
De Loriol (245) comprises a great number of species under the name of Ahabdocidaris Desor; but he
owns (p.7) that «au fond, toutes les tentatives, qui ont été faites pour demembrer le grand genre
Cidaris, mont pas été heureuses; on trouvera toujours tant de passages entre les espéces, en apparence
les plus distinctes, qwil est douteux pour moi, s'il est vraiment nécessaire de diviser ce genre admirable,
qui apparait dés la fin de lére paléozoique et traverse dés lors tous les étages, sans manquer dans
aucune, pour se retrouver enfin dans les mers actuelles sans avoir modifié aucun de ses caractéres».
The most important contribution to the classification of the Cidarids has been given by Déderlein
in his above quoted, large and excellent work «Die japanischen Seeigel» where he attempts to group
as well the recent forms as the fossil ones according to their real relation. With regard to the recent
forms the following genera are retained: Dorocidaris, Stereocidaris (known until then only as _ fossil
from the cretaceous period), Luczdaris, Leiocidaris, Porocidaris, and Gondocidaris. But neither is the
limitation by Déderlein of these genera satisfactory; above all it holds good with regard to his
genera as well as with regard to those of the other authors that nobody is able to recognise them

with certainty by the diagnoses given, when upon the whole diagnoses are given. After all it is a

ECHINOIDEA. I. 13

matter of judgment, to which genus one species or another is to be referred, and most of the species
more frequently mentioned have also by and by been referred to almost all the different genera. So
far it is very consistently done by Duncan and Bell (73) quite to strike out all these undistinguish-
able genera, and only retain the old genus Crdarzs; but then on the other hand this way of proceed-
ing means quite to abandon the pursuit.

The reason why the result of the earlier attempts at classification has been so meagre, has to
be sought in the characters used. The most important ones have been, whether the two pores of
each ambulacral plate are connected by a groove or not, and whether the tubercles are crenulated or
not. Further the spines, the number of plates, the breadth of the ambulacral area, and upon the
whole the structure of the test have been considered of great importance. All these characters,
however, are insufficient or even unreliable. As has been pointed out by both Déderlein and Dun-
can, it is often impossible to decide, whether the pores are or are not connected by a groove. The
crenulation is a very variable character; crenulated tubercles may be found in some individuals belong-
ing to species normally without crenulation. The structure of the test, the tubercles, the number
of plates etc. are very much dependent on the age of the animal. All these characters, says
Duncan, are «of no physiological importance whatever»; «any classification in which these
characters are used is artificial», On the other hand he thinks that «the number of interradial plates
(is) of physiological importance; and there is a great temptation to consider typical Cidarids as having
but a few, say not more than seven, in a vertical row» (132 p.30). This character seems to be at
least as gratuitous, as the others criticised by Duncan are relative ones; neither seems the result of
his systematic researches in any way to show that he has found here a systematic character of
any great importance.

Among the characters hitherto used in the classification, the spines seem to be one of the most
reliable. They show a great richness of forms, but are at the same time of a rather constant form in
the separate species. Also their microscopic structure differs to a high degree, and here, perhaps, we
might find good generic characters. There are in the literature not a few examinations of the struc-
ture of the spines in the Cidarids. Stewart'), Bell (57), and Agassiz (Revision of Echini and
Chall. Ech.) have figured transverse sections of the spines of different species; but especially H. W.
Mackintosh has rendered great services to the question by his excellent researches on the struc-
ture of the Echinoid-spines (264—6s). The spines of the Cidarids differ from those of the other Echi-
noids by having a compact outer layer («<ostracwm» Bell); (such a layer is also found, however, in
Salenia and Arbacia (on the point of the spines)); — «acanthostracous» this kind of spines is called
by Mackintosh. Unfortunately it cannot with certainty be inferred from the existing examinations
whether the structure of the spines yields good generic characters. Mackintosh is decidedly of opinion
that the spines really yield characters of that importance; he finds instances «in which the acantho-
logical characters would seem to call for a change in the position of a genus» (265 I p. 478), and he
lays stress on the importance of always mentioning the structure of the spines in the description of
Echinoids. Otherwise he has examined too few Cidarids to have got a sure impression of the

1) On the minute structure of certain hard parts of the genus Cidaris. Quarterl. Journ. Micr. Science. N. S. XI.
1871. p.51—55. pl. IV.

14 ECHINOIDEA. I.

systematic importance of the spines in this family. Bell (57) who has examined the spines in Govzo-
cidarts florigera, Phyllacanthus imperialis, and Stephanocidaris bispinosa, finds that «within the limits
of the true Cidarideze stages in the extent of the fenestration, and the regularity of the spoke-like
intermediate layers are to be observed; when combined with the inquiry into the relations of other
structural characters .... they will perhaps be found to be of use in determining the minor questions
of the limitations of the genera, of which that family is composed».

No doubt Bell is right when he thinks that the structure of the spines will be of systematic
importance; it is, however, not the inner structure, which is highly homogeneous, but the outer layer
that is of importance here. From the sections of the spines of 5 different Cidarids figured on Pl. XI,
Figs. 1, 3, 14, 24, 31, 33, 1t will be seen that the outer layer is constructed in a highly different way.
Sometimes it is quite smooth, with no indication of any roughness whatever on the surface, sometimes
it is richly set with small, hairlike outgrowths especially between the ribs. These «hairs» may be
more or less branched, and they may unite so as to form a dense reticulation. Special attention must,
accordingly, be paid to this outer layer; no doubt, valuable characters will be found here, but for the
present nothing can be said with regard to the fact whether only specific characters, or, what is more
probable, also generic characters may be found. A clearer view of this question is not to be got until
a larger number of species has been examined. The accounts hitherto given, unfortunately, have not
been sufficiently exact with regard to the outer layer, so that they are not to be trusted in this
respect. As it is the outer layer, which is mainly to be considered, it is of no use to examine old
spines, they must be fresh, so that the outer layer is still undamaged (such as are not overgrown by
foreign organisms).

The spicules of the tube feet seem only to be of slight systematical importance. Commonly
they are formed like bows reaching over about half of the circumference of the foot or somewhat less.
They are more or less spinulous; in some species of S¢tereocidaris they are formed as larger, fenestrated
plates. Generic characters would seem not to be found in the forms of the spicules.

Then only the pedicellariz are left where we might expect to find good specific characters;
but to judge by the statements in the existing literature, it would also seem beforehand to be rather
hopeless. Perrier, in his well-known large work on the pedicellariz, has given (not very exact)
figures and descriptions of several forms; but their systematic importance does not clearly appear from

these figures and descriptions. Stewart (op.cit.) has given an excellent figure of a pedicellaria of

Cidarts annulata>, According to Agassiz (Revision of Echini) C. annzlata A. Ag. is = C. tribuloides
Lamk., and C.annulata Gray = Phyllacanthus annulifera A. Ag. ‘The figured pedicellaria, however,

cannot belong to any of those species, although Agassiz (Revision p.g9) mentions the quoted work
of Stewart under C. ¢ribuloides; it seems to be a Gontocidaris, but which species cannot be deter-
mined. In (379) Stewart further gives a couple of excellent figures of globiferous pedicellarize in Doro-
cidaris papillata. Also Wyville Thomson (395) gives excellent figures of the pedicellarize in Doro-
cidaris papillata and Porocidaris purpurata. In «Revision of Echini» and in the «Challenger»-Echinoids
(8) Agassiz figures pedicellariz of several Cidarids, but generally the figures are not good. Déder-
lein (116), however, is the first author, who has tried to use the pedicellarize in a correct way in the

classification of the Cidarids. He has studied the pedicellarize in a larger number of species, and

ECHINOIDEA. I. 15

thinks that they often give excellent specific characters, but he was disappointed «in ihrer erhofften
Verwendbarkeit zur Unterscheidung nattirlicher Gruppen innerhalb der Familie» (p.1). «Nur mit
grosser Vorsicht diirfen Pedicellarien als systematische Merkmale bei den Cidariden beniitzt werden».
The small pedicellarize are highly similar in almost all species, but they may vary very much in the
separate individuals. (Only the form with a long terminal hook, occurring in Gonzocidaris mikado and
clypeata, is especially mentioned). The tridentate ones («l6ffelartige Form») are better, but they are
also highly varying in the separate individuals. Most applicable for the classification is the thick-
headed form, (the large, globiferous pedicellariz); it is highly constant in form and size, and shows
many peculiarities, «die sehr wohl einzelne Arten, manchmal auch Gruppen charakterisiren kénnen».
He also tries to group the species according to these peculiarities, without, however, attributing to
them any great systematic importance, and therefore he does not mention the pedicellarie in his
diagnoses of genera. The fact is that also this form of pedicellarize shows some variability, is some-
times even quite wanting in some individuals, so that it is no quite reliable character. An extra-
ordinary fact is «dass sehr ahnliche Formen dieser Pedicellarien bei Arten vorkommen k6énnen, die
nach den iibrigen Charakteren sehr wenig Verwandtschaft mit eimander bekunden» (C. metularia and
verticillata). Wis final result is: «In vielen Fallen hat nun ohne Frage die Vergleichung der Pedicel-
larien nicht geringen Werth fiir die Systematik; sie geben jedenfalls sehr brauchbare Charaktere zur
Unterscheidung der Arten. — Zur Charakterisierung von grésseren Gruppen innerhalb der Familie
finde ich aber Pedicellarien sehr wenig verwendbar» (p. 34).

And so the last hope of finding good generic characters in the Cidarids seems to have vanished.
Fortunately, however, my researches have given another result than that of Déderlein, viz. that
the pedicellariz yield excellent generic characters, while they may only more rarely
be used for distinguishing between the species. This seems to be irreconcilable with the
above quoted statement of Déderlein that species not more nearly related, may have quite similar
pedicellariz. As instances are only named Cidaris metularia and verticillata. Now it is quite correct
that they have the same kind of pedicellariz; but then the question is whether the other characters,
in which they differ, are sufficient to show that they cannot belong to the same genus. The most
essential difference seems to be found in the spines, which are in C. verticillata provided with large
thorns placed in circles far from each other, while in C. metwlaria the spines have the whole surface
evenly set with homogeneous, small tubercles arranged in longitudinal series. Also with regard to
the provision of the interambulacral plates with miliary tubercles a difference is found — they are
almost naked in C verticillata, closely covered in C. metularia. As it has otherwise proved to be a
fact that the characters taken from the structure of the test have been anything but good as generic
characters, and as there seems to be nothing unnatural in the fact that spines as those in C. mefu-
laria and verticillata are found in species of the same genus, I cannot but regard the fact of the two
species having the same kind of (very characteristic) pedicellariz as proving them to be nearly related,
so that they will have to be regarded as not too closely allied species of the same genus. Besides
there is another species of the same genus presenting considerably more resemblance to C. verticillata

than the C. mctularia mentioned by Déderlein. This is C. daculosa which is by Déderlein referred

16 ECHINOIDEA. I.

to the same genus (Zevocidaris) as C.verticillata. In this species the thorns are often placed in circles
in a somewhat similar way as in C. verticillata.

Especially the large globiferous pedicellarize are of importance in the classification, the blade
and partly also the stalk offering a great variety of forms. Also the length of the stalk is very
different; this fact, however, has to be used with great caution, at it is very varying. Déderlein
seems to put no small weight upon it. Also the small globiferous pedicellariz are of rather great
importance; more important, however, are the tridentate ones, which in a single genus, Porocidaris,
are two-valved. In this genus (and perhaps in the genus //?sfocidaris) globiferous pedicellariz seem
to be quite wanting; on the other hand tridentate pedicellarie are wanting in several other species —
but perhaps not constantly. That the globiferous or tridentate pedicellariz may sometimes be want-
ing, is mentioned by Déderlein as an objection to their being used in the classification. I cannot
see, however, that this objection is sound; a corresponding fact would be, ifwe were to give up using
the teeth of the mammals as systematic characters, because now one, now another kind, or even
sometimes all of them are wanting.

When we now look over the Cidarids, and place together the species with similarly constructed
pedicellarize, we shall get a grouping rather differing from all hitherto given classifications.

Dorocidaris papillata: the globiferous pedicellarie have a powerful hook at the point, above
the large, somewhat lenghtened, not terminal opening; small pedicellariz of the same form; the triden-
tate ones simple (Pl. 1X, Figs.7, 25). Quite similar pedicellarize are found in Dorocidaris Blaket A. Ag.
(PL IX, Fig. 16), which is accordingly a genuine Dorocidaris. On the other hand the following species
that have been referred to Dorocidaris: D. Bartletti Ag., bracteata Ag. and Reini Doderl. differ widely
from this genus, and are moreover so different from each other that they must be referred to three
different genera.

D. Bartletti: the globiferous pedicellariz have a long powerful hook at the point. The opening
is exceedingly small, as a fine pore, surrounded by small teeth; it is placed rather far from the point.
(PI. X, Figs. 23, 30). The stalk is most frequently provided with a limb of freely projecting calcareous
ridges. The small pedicellarize are of the same structure, only the opening is larger; tridentate pedi-
cellariee simple. There can be no doubt but that this species must form a separate genus; I propose
the name of Tretocidaris'). To this genus’ must further be referred the two following new species,
which I found in British Museum, both under the name of Dorocidaris papillata.

Tretocidaris annulata n.sp. The globiferous pedicellarize differ somewhat from those of 7.
Bartietti the inside of the blade being provided with some dentate transverse ridges and crests forming
a coarse, irregular reticulation; at the upper end of the apophysis the margin of the blade is somewhat
widened, highly fenestrated in a reticulate way, and bent a little outward (Pl. X, Figs. 22, 31). The stalk
(PI. LX, Fig. 4) and the other pedicellarize as in 7: Bartlett. The spines are finely annulated with
brown rings, the upper spines have powerful thorns especially on the side turned up; they are tapering,
about one time and a half as long as the diameter of the test; the actinal spines were wanting in
the specimen. There is a rather deep, naked furrow along the median line of the interambulacral

areas, and it continues between the plates outward to where the scrobicular areas join each other.

1) toytog = bored.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 5

There are 7 plates in the interambulacral areas. In the ambulacral area there is a little tubercle

Oo
oe , as in Porocidarts purpurata. The colour of the

ol

alternately between each two primary tubercles

test is redbrown, and therefore the white, naked furrow of the interambulacral areas is especially con-
spicuous. — Locality: The West Indies (no nearer information). Should this species perhaps be
Gray’s Cidaris annulata?

Tretocidaris spinosa n.sp. The globiferous pedicellariz have no such reticulation as those
of Zi annulata, and differ from those of 7: Gartletti by the sides forming an almost straight line from
the basal surface to the opening. (Pl. X, Figs. 10, 11). The small globiferous pedicellariz as in the
two other species (Pl. X, Fig. 16). On the stalk no distinct, freely projecting calcareous ridges are
seen, only a marked swelling. (It is, however, possible that the limb of the stalk is found on other
specimens; in the two other species it was not found either in all the large globiferous pedicellaric);
tridentate pedicellariz were not found. The spines closely grooved, rather finely thorned, widened at
the point, of the same length as the diameter of the test. The actinal spines smooth, not serrated, their
points not widened. The small spines are strongly redbrown. There is a naked median line in the
interambulacral area, but it is only little conspicuous. 9g plates in the interambulacral area; thus the
large spines are somewhat more numerous than commonly, which gives to the animal a very charac-
teristic appearance. The tubercles in the ambulacral areas as in 7: avnulata. Locality: St. Helena (no
nearer information).

«Dorocidaris» bracteata Ag. The globiferous pedicellarize much lengthened and narrow, with a
powerful hook at the end, and a rather small, triangular opening a little below the point (Pl. X,
Fig. 18); the small pedicellarize of the same structure, tridentate ones simple. This form of pedicel-
larice is further found in «Phyllacanthus» annulifera (Lamk.), Pl. X, Fig.17, and Stephanocidaris bispi-
nosa (Lamk.), and these species will have to be united into one genus, which must keep the name of
Stephanocidaris.

Dorocidaris» Reini Déderl. The globiferous pedicellarize are of a very peculiar structure; the
mouth is placed in the end of the blade, surrounded by well marked teeth on the margin which is bent
a little outward. «Schnauzenahnlich vorragend» Déderlein says of the blade in this peculiar form
of pedicellariz, and it really resembles a snout to some degree. On the stalk a limb of short thorns
is found. The small pedicellarize are of a quite different structure, a well developed end-tooth being
found here, and the large mouth situated below the point. This form of pedicellarie is found in a
series of species, viz. Cidaris affinis (P1. 1X, Figs.9, 22, 24) (which is in no way synonymous with Doro-
cidaris papillata, as has been commonly supposed), ¢rzbedloides, galapagensts — and, I suppose, also in
Dorocidaris panamensis Ag.; at all events this species, to judge by the figure, would seem to be most
nearly related to Cidaris affinis and Reini; it is scarcely a Dorocidaris. ‘The following species have
pedicellariz of the same structure, but are distinguished by having a limb of long, freely projecting
calcareous ridges on the stalk of the globiferous pedicellariee: Czdaris metularia, Thouarsit (according
to Déderlein (116 p. 19) Cidaris Thouarsti has only a short limb on the stalk; the specimens examined
by me have long limbs), verticil/ata and baculosa. Further has (according to the statement of Ddder-

lein) Phyllacanthus imperialis the same kind of pedicellarie (whether a limb is found on the stalk

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 3

18 ECHINOIDEA. I.

or not, is not mentioned; I have not been able to find any large globiferous pedicellariz in the few
specimens I have examined), and the same, I suppose, holds also good with regard to Phyllacanthus
dubia and parvispina Woods. Finally a similar form of giobiferous pedicellariz is found in Govzo-
cidaris florigera Ag. («Challenger»-Echinoids, Pl. I. Fig. 12) (Pl. X, Figs. 27, 29); in the latter there is no
trace of a limb on the stalk.

Do now all these species belong to one genus? — Surely not. We shall first have to separate
Goniocidaris florigera. It has no trace of a limb on the stalk, the spines differ considerably from
those of all the other mentioned species, and I suppose that a closer examination will show several
other peculiarities. D6derlein (116) thinks it to be most nearly related to the species Gonzocidaris
clypeata and G. mikado described by him, which species are distinguished by the spines being provided
with a peculiar flat widening at the base. Traces of such a widening are also found in G. forigera;
but the pedicellariz of this species are so different from those of the two mentioned species that their
being united into one genus is out of the question. It differs also from the genuine Goviocidaris-species
(G. tubaria etc.) by its pedicellariz; it must form a separate genus, for which I propose the name of
Petalocidaris. There can scarcely be any doubt, however, that it is closely related to Gonzocidaris.

Next Phyllacanthus imperialis must form a separate genus. It has peculiar large tridentate
pedicellarie, the blades of which are quite filled by a close net of meshes forming irregular longi-
tudinal ridges closely set with small teeth (Pl. X Fig. 8); (the valve figured here, is from a smaller pedi-
cellaria where only two longitudinal ridges are seen). The small pedicellaria have no end-tooth
(Pl. IX. Fig. 6). The spines are peculiar, thick, with fine longitudinal striz. Together with this species
Ph. dubia has no doubt to be placed — if upon the whole it can be kept as a separate species, of
which I can have no decided opinion, as I have had no occasion to examine it. Also Phydlac. parvispina
Woods must, to judge by the figure given by Woods (443), belong here; its spines resemble very much
those of Ph. imperialis though Woods states them to be «entirely different from any described species».
Also Ramsay (331 p.45) says of this species that on the Australian south-coast it is the «representative
of P. dubia of the North Coast». — This genus, no doubt, must keep Brandt’s old name of Phydla-
canthus. Brandt?) gives Cidarites dubia as the type of the section «Phyllacanthus», and observes that
to this will have to be added C. zmperialis, hystrix, geranioides, and pistillarts. The three latter can in
no way be classed together with the two former; these two must keep the name of Phyllacanthus.
Desor in his «Synopsis des Echinides fossiles» (1855) establishes the genus Levocidaris (p. 48), and as
the type of the genus he gives Cidaris imperialis. — Thus there will be no use for the name of Lezo-
cidaris, it will only be a synonym of Phyllacanthus. — It will also be necessary to say some words of
the much used name of Rhabdocidaris by the present occasion. The genus has been established by
Desor (op. cit. p. 39) for fossil species; in a note is added: «Parmi les espéces vivantes on pourrait
reporter A ce genre les Crdaris tribuloides et C.imperialis, si leurs tubercules étaient pas complétement
lisses». De Loriol (245) has later enlarged this genus to comprise: 1) The fossil species of the genus
Rhabdocidaris sensu stricto, 2) the Rhabdocidaris-species with smooth tubercles, 3) the species of Lezocidarzs
Desor and Dames (emend.), 4) the recent species of the genus Phyllacanthus Brandt, 5) the genus
Stephanocidaris Ag., and 6) the genus Schlecnitzia Studer. «Ainsi constitué, le genre Khabdocidaris

1) Prodromus descriptionis animalium ab. H. Mertensio in orbis terrarum circumnavigatione observatorum. 1825 p. 68.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 19

groupera naturellement un assez grand nombre d’espéces vivantes et fossiles et me parait utile a
conserver>. The advantage of such a «genus», however, seems to me to be rather illusory; with the
limitation given by de Loriol Ahabdocidaris becomes still more heterogeneous than Phyllacanthus,
as it is limited by Agassiz in «Revision». As the genus has originally only been used of fossil
species, it is quite impossible to decide whether some of the recent forms really belong to it; by the
tests and the spines alone the genera cannot at present be recognised with certainty, and no pedicel-
larize of fossil species are known. Accordingly the name of Rfabdocidaris is not to be used for any
recent Cidarid.

On the other hand the other species with terminal opening on the globiferous pedicellaric
and limb on the stalk seem to form a natural group; the shortness or length of the limb can
scarcely be used as a character for the subdivision of the group. Possibly C.affinds and Retini (and
perhaps paxamensts) will prove to form a special group — their spines seem to differ somewhat from
the other mentioned species; but this can only be decided by more thorough examinations. For the
present all these species: Czdaris affinis, Reini, (panamensts ?), tribuloides, galapagensts, metularia, Thou-
arsit, verticillata, and baculosat) must form one genus, which must keep the old name of Czdarzs,
Linné’s «Echinus Cidarts», as has been proved by Lovén (252), being Cidarts baculosa Lamk. The
name of Luczdarts Pomel, which has of late often been used for species of this group, cannot correctly
be used. Pomel (324) enumerates as types of this genus some fossil forms (#orzerz etc.) from the trias,
and «trois espéces vivantes», but he does not mention which species he means, and the fact is here,
as in Rhabdocidaris, that it is quite impossible to decide whether any of the recent species belong to
the same genus as the mentioned fossil ones.

Besides the species mentioned here, Déderlein still enumerates «Lezocidaris» annulifera Lam.
as belonging to those species, the globiferous pedicellarize of which have terminal opening and limb
on the stalk; here C.annulifera is referred to the genus Stephanocidarts which has a quite different
form of pedicellarize (see above) — a contradiction which can only have its origin from a difference
in the interpretation of the species C. annulifera Lamk. This species together with C. dacwlosa Lam.
have caused and still cause many difficulties to the systematists. Lamarck?) in his diagnosis of
C.annulifera says: «spinis majoribus longis, tereti-subulatis, asperulatis, albo purpureoque annulatis»,
and in his diagnosis of C. éaculosa: «spinis majoribus subteretibus, tuberculato-asperis, apice truncatis,
collo guttatis»; according to this Agassiz («Revision of Echini» p. 389) states as the only certain
character of the highly varying C. dacalosa «the spotted base of the shaft of the spine below the
milled ring, which is of a light reddish or reddish-yellow ground-color, with deep violet spots marked
extremely distinctly upon the fine longitudinal striation». Loriol (243) later describes and figures a
Cidarid by the name of C. avznuwlifera Lamk.; he has had a radiole of the type-specimen of this species
for comparison, and has found it completely corresponding to those of the specimen described by him.
These spines have «leur base couverte sur une longueur plus ou moins grande de petites taches
pourpres, formant des lignes et entremélées de petits points» — the character especially particular of

C. baculosa! Thus, somehow or other, an error must have slipped in, and I think it most likely that

1) If C. pistillaris Lamk. be a good species, it must also be referred here.
2) Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres. II. Ed. 1840. T. III. p. 380.

oo

20 ECHINOIDEA. I.

the spine, which Loriol has got from Paris, has really been of C. daculosa — such a changing of
loose spines in a museum is not absolutely inconceivable. The C. Lzitkent described by Loriol in
the same work, seems rather to be the real C. annalifera, which must then be very nearly related to
C. bispinosa, perhaps identical with it. Bedford (35 p.274) also regards C. Lzitkent as synonymous
with C.annulifera Lamk., but at the same time he seems to think it to be identical with Loriol’s
C.annulifera, which cannot be correct. Déderlein, who has examined a specimen of Loriol’s C.
annulifera, finds this species to be highly consistent with C. dacelosa. «Einen Unterschied zwischen
den beiden Arten kann ich nur in der Farbung der Primarstacheln finden; denn selbst die Form der
Primarstacheln kann bei bestimmten Individuen beider Arten identisch sein. — Nur die Farbung des
Schaftes ist verschieden, indem Z. annulifera Querbinden zeigt, die Z. dbacwlosa fehlen; die eigenthtim-
liche und auffallende Tiipfelung des Stachelhalses dagegen, die sonst nirgends zu beobachten ist,
findet sich bei beiden Arten in gleicher Weise. Nachdem aber eine Autoritat wie Al. Agassiz auf
Grund eines reichlichen Materials die Frage nach der moglichen Identitat der beiden Arten tiberhaupt
nicht aufwirft, kann ich es nicht wagen bei meinem ganz unzulanglichen Materiale eine solche zu
behaupten. Ich kann hier nur constatieren, dass die oben beschriebene jugendliche Z. axnulifera nach
ihren saémmtlichen Charakteren, abgesehen nur von der Farbung der Stacheln, unbedingt als ein
junges Exemplar von Z. daculosa gelten kénnte» (116 p.24). Prominence is also given to the fact
that the pedicellarize are quite identical. In another work (245) Loriol gives a thorough description
and figures of C. éaculosa, but its resemblance with the C. aznulifera before described by him, is not
at all mentioned. Thus the fact seems to be: either Loriol’s C. annulifera is really this species —
and then C. éaculosa Lamk. and C. annulifera are synonyms — or it has, on account of some error
or other, been wrongly determined —- and then C. annulifera is most nearly related to C. dbzspinosa
Lamk. (perhaps synonymous with it). The latter is the more probable. An examination of the type-
specimens, especially their pedicellariz, will easily decide this question. To be sure, Perrier has
figured pedicellarize of these two species, but unfortunately only so little exactly and minutely that he
has not at all contributed to the clearing up of the question, especially as of one species he has only
figured a globiferous pedicellaria, of the other only a tridentate one.

According to Déderlein (116 p. 25) Schleinitzia crenularis Studer is very nearly related to C.
baculosa; Studer’s figures (386) agree also partly with it, the separately figured spines having all
the characteristic spots on the neck. On the figure of the whole animal these spots, however, are
not found, and as, according to informations I have received from both Geh.rath, Prof. E.v. Martens
and Prof. Déderlein, spines of at least two different species are found in the glass together with
the type-specimen (v. Martens has sent me some of the spines), the safest plan will be to say
nothing definite of this species, till the pedicellarize of the type-specimen have been examined.
Studer only figures the small form of the globiferous pedicellariz.

Among the species referred to Phyllacanthus by Agassiz, still one has not been mentioned,
viz. Ph. gigantea Ag. It differs from all other known Cidarids by its peculiar spines, as well primary
as secondary ones; also its pedicellariz are peculiar. The large globiferous ones (Pl. X, Figs. 15, 19)
have a large cordate opening the lower limit of which is formed like a highly protruding lower lip;

the opening reaches to the very point, and no end-tooth is found. No limb on the stalk. The

ECHINOIDEA. I.

small pedicellariz are of a somewhat different form (Pl. X, Fig. 26), and have a more or less powerful
end-tooth. Tridentate pedicellariz about as in Dorocidaris papillata, only with the edge somewhat
more dentate. Spicules of the common form. It is obvious that this species cannot] remain in the
genus Phyllacanthus as here limited, or be referred to any of the mentioned genera; it must form a
separate genus and retain the name of Chondrocidaris, originally given to it by Agassiz’).

The splendid Crdaris curvatispinis described by Bell (74), is in its whole appearance so unlike
all other Cidarids that it is beforehand to be supposed that it represents a separate genus. The
examination of its pedicellarize also confirms this supposition. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. VIII,
Fig. 37) have no end-tooth; the opening is large, reaching to the point, but its lower limit is remark-
ably irregular — the figured one is one of the most regular; sometimes there seems to be no definite
limit at all, the calcareous covering running out into irregular dents, as if it was broken off (which
is, however, quite out of the question, as the pedicellaria was otherwise quite undamaged). The small
pedicellarize are of the same structure, the only difference being that the lower limit of the opening
is here often a rather regular transverse line. (The possibility that the described and figured pedicel-
laria is really, in spite of its size, only the small form of the globiferous pedicellaria, is not excluded;
but on the only known specimen, which by the kindness of Prof. Bell I had the opportunity to
examine in British Museum, there seemed to be found no other kind of globiferous pedicellariz). The
tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. X, Fig.9) are very peculiar, with some large, dentate crests of thin calcareous
lamellze longitudinally in the blade. No limb on the stalk. The spicules of the common form. For
this species I propose the generic name of Acanthocidaris.

The genus Porocidaris is established by Desor (op. cit. p. 46) for some fossil Cidarids, especially
distinguished by a circle of pores in the scrobicular area; to this genus Wy ville Thomson (394—95)
referred a Cidarid from «Porcupine» under the name of Poroczdaris purpurata. Whether it really
belongs to this genus cannot be decided, till the pedicellarize of the fossil species referred to it by
Desor, become known. But to judge by what is hitherto known the species may well seem to be a
Porocidaris, and for the present there seems to be no reason to reject this commonly used name, and
P. purpurata W.Th. may then be put down as the type of the genus. Peculiarities of this genus are
then the depressions in the scrobicular area (not pores as in the fossil species), the highly developed
neck of the spines, the highly serrate edge of the actinal radioles’). But the most particular feature
are the pedicellariz. Only one form is found which must be referred to the tridentate ones; they are
two-valved, highly compressed, and exceedingly large and conspicuous. The spicules of the
common form.

To Porocidaris have later been referred the following species: P. elegans Ag

3)

Sharrert Ag,
Milleri Ag., Cobost Ag., gracilis Sladen, gracilis Déderl., mzsakienszs Yoshiwara, and zcerta Koehler.
Of these species P. gracilis Sladen is, no doubt, only a young P. purpurata, and this name is then to
be omitted as a synonym. P. elegans (one of the type-specimens («Challenger» St.164a) examined in

British Museum): the tridentate pedicellarize are widely different from those of P. purpurata. There

1) List of Echinoderms sent to different Institutions in exchange for other specimens, with annotations. Bull. Mus.
Comp. Zool. I. 1863.

2) Especially the latter fact is often mentioned as characteristic of the genus; this, however, is not at all reliable, as
sufficiently shown by these researches.

ECHINOIDEA. I.

| N
iS)

are two forms, a larger and a smaller, both three-valved. In the larger form the blade is filled by an
exceedingly rich net of meshes, in which the holes are rather distinctly arranged serially, and radiate
in a fanshaped way from the upper end of the apophysis; this net is covered with numerous small
thorns, especially towards the point. Also the upper edge of the apophysis is very broad and full of
holes. (The figures in the «Challenger»-Echinoids, Pl. XLIV, 6—14, are not very good, especially not
figs. 6 and 11, where it is not seen at all that the whole mass filling the blade, is really a net of
meshes with innumerable larger and smaller holes). In the other, smaller form the apophysis has the
common structure; the blade is highly compressed, deep, and filled with an irregular net of meshes
where the holes are not at all serially arranged. Transitions are however found between the two
forms, so that they cannot be said to be two distinct kinds. When Agassiz (Chall. Ech. p. 43) says
of «the large-headed, shortstemmed pedicellarize» that they are «very similar to those of Dorocidaris»,
this is only so far correct, as tridentate pedicellarize, of course, always in some degree resemble each
other; in the finer structure the large tridentate pedicellarize of this species are especially widely
different from those of D. fapillata. The small ones are much more similar. — Agassiz (l.c.) mentions
one more form of pedicellariae, «shortstemmed globular abactinal pedicellarize» (Pl. XLIV, 10); they are,
as I have been able to substantiate, only developmental forms of the large tridentate pedicellarie. I
aim a little in doubt whether globiferous pedicellarize are found. In my preparation of isolated skeleton-
pieces of pedicellarize of this species is seen one valve of a small globiferous pedicellaria, which is very
peculiar, with two large teeth at the point, and a rather small opening surrounded by well developed
teeth (PI. [X, Fig. 2). As, however, only one such valve is found, it may be thought to have come in
by chance; in this case it must be abnormal, as no other Cidarid examined by me, is possessed of
such pedicellariz. For the present this must be left undecided. — It is obvious that this species has
no relation with P. purpurata, and as it shows no nearer relation to any other known species, it must
form a separate genus, for which I propose the name of Histocidaris.

P. Sharrert: Agassiz (g) unfortunately gives no details as to the pedicellariz, and from the
figure (op. cit. Pl. III) it cannot be decided whether it is a genuine Porocidaris. There seems to be no
highly developed neck on the spines (in the text nothing is said of this feature); the pedicellarice
might. well look like those of P. purpurata, but a close examination will be necessary for the decision.
3y the kindness of Prof. Rathbun I have from U.S. National Museum received a specimen deter-
mined as P. Sharrert («Albatross» 1885. St. 2415); it proved to be the new species Stereocidaris ingolfiana
described hereafter; it has no relation to P. Sharrert. Further I have in British Museum seen a
specimen determined as P. Sharrert, from U.S. Fish Commission («Albatross» 1885. St. 2345). Neither
seems this specimen to be identical with the real, figured P. Sharreri, at all events it does not to any
striking degree resemble the figure given by Agassiz. It is no Porocidarts. The pedicellariz (Pl. IX,
Fig. 26) are much like those of Dorocidaris, only the opening of the large globiferous pedicellariz is
more round and of a more definite form than is otherwise the case in this genus; but this fact might
very well be interpreted as a specific difference. ‘Tridentate pedicellarize simple. A much more con-
siderable difference is found in the spines; they are long, slender — unfortunately they were broken,
so that their length and the form of their point are unknown. The base is finely pink, the outer

part white. They are quite smooth and shining, as if polished, and the structure of the outer layer

ECHINOIDEA. I.

dS
aes)

is peculiar (Pl. XI. Fig. 24) with no trace of roughness on the surface. Perhaps the specimen of
Porocidaris Sharrert mentioned by Agassiz (9 p.13) «which was of a light greenish pink color when
alive, the spines white with a delicate brownish-pink base» is identical with the specimen described
here — in this case this specimen mentioned by Agassiz has certainly not been of the same species
as the one he figures; but this latter must, of course, keep the name of Sharrerz, There can be no
doubt that the specimen described here is a new species; whether it also is to be regarded as a new
genus, or belongs to Dorocidaris, can only be decided, when the systematic significance of the spines
has been established. For the present it ought to be classed with ovocidaris, under the name of
D. micans u. sp.

Neither is P. imcerta Koehler (233 a), of which species Prof. v. Beneden has lent me a speci-
men for examination, a Poroctdaris. I have only found one form of globiferous pedicellarize on it; it
has no end-tooth, the opening small, round (Pl. VIII, Fig. 31). Most likely another, larger form of
globiferous pedicellarize will be found in this species; but the figured form is a sufficient proof that
this species has no relation to Poroc¢daris. Koehler also refers it only in a doubtful way to /oro-
cidaris on account of the highly dentate actinal radioles. The spicules are simple.

Of the other species that have been referred to Porocidaris, P. Cobost most likely is a genuine
Porocidaris, but it cannot be decided with certainty, till the pedicellaria have been examined. For
the present nothing can be said with certainty of P. Afilleri and muisakiensis; according to Agassiz
(13) P. Miller’ is «closely allied to P. elegans». On the other hand it may be said with certainty that
P. gracilis Déderl. is no Porocidaris. Its globiferous pedicellariz of which only one form is known,
recall to some degree those of «Gontocidaris» canaliculata; tridentate pedicellarie unknown. Perhaps
it ought to form a separate genus.

The genera Stereocidaris and Goniocidaris to which a whole series of species have been referred,
are still left. The species referred to Stereocidaris: japonica, grandis, sceptriferoides, and the here
described new species S¥. zngolfiana agree in the structure of the pedicellarie: there is no end-tooth,
and the large opening reaching to the very point is broad and well limited below, quite narrow above.
The small globiferous pedicellariz chiefly of the same structure, without end-tooth; the tridentate
pedicellariz seem to show no special peculiarities (they are not known in all the species). The spicules
are rather large fenestrated plates, not thorny bows, as is else the case in the Cidarids — this,
however, does not apply to all the species; in SZ grandis they are of the common form, and so the
spicules give no reliable generic character. There is no reason to doubt that also S¢ indica Déderl.
really belongs to this genus, although we have no informations of its pedicellarice. Doéderlein
further thinks (118) that Dorocédaris tiara and alcockt are perhaps only local forms of this species. Of
the species S¥. tenwispinus and microtuberculatus Yoshiw. nothing can be said with certainty. — Whether
this group of species really belongs to the same genus as the fossil Stereocidaris-species, cannot be
definitely decided, until the pedicellariz of the latter are known; but the probability is that they
really belong here, and there is no reason, at all events not for the present, to reject the name of
Stereocidaris for them.

To the genus Goniocidaris, the only one of the hitherto admitted genera that has been com-

monly acknowledged, the following species have been referred: geranioides Lamk., tebaria Lamk.,

24 ECHINOIDEA. I.

canaliculata Ag. (to which Crdarts nutrix W.Th., Gontoc. vivipara Studer, and G. membranipora Studer
are referred as synonyms), florigera Ag., Déderleimt Ag., biserialis Déderl., clypeata Déderl., wmbraculum
Hutton, and Mortensent Koehler. Types of this genus are the species geranioides and tubaria, espe-
cially peculiar by having rather deep pits between the plates, in each of which pits is placed an
almost globular pedicellaria. These pedicellariz are very peculiar, short and broad; the opening,
which is small and surrounded with distinct teeth, reaches to the point, so that no end-tooth is found
(Pl. X, Fig. 20). The small globiferous pedicellaria have a powerful end-tooth; no tridentate pedicel-
lariz seem to be found. Spicules of the common form. There can be no doubt that G. geranioides
has the same structure of the pedicellarize as G. tubaria; the large globiferous ones are figured by
Agassiz (Revision Pl. XXIV, 12—13), and they are obviously very similar to those of ‘¢udaria.
Perrier (op.cit. Pl. III, 12) figures a small globiferous pedicellaria, but the figure gives no clear
information of the structure of the point; the text, however, leaves no doubt that it is built as in
G. tubaria. Most closely allied to these two species is no doubt G. wmbraculum Hutton. The pedi-
cellariz (Pl. X. Figs. 13, 21) show only little difference from those of the two mentioned species. Also
G. biserialis Déderl. belongs here; to be sure, it is not clear from the figures and description of
Doéderlein, in what way the small globiferous pedicellarize are constructed, but Prof. Déderlein
has kindly sent me a preparation, so that I have been able to substantiate that they are built as in
the other species, with a powerful end-tooth (Pl. IX, Fig. 10). The two species G. clypfeata and mikado
are especially distinguished from the other Govzocidaris-species by the spines being highly widened,
and having, moreover, a peculiar basal widening; the impressions in the angles of the plates are
indistinct; the pedicellariz seem also to be somewhat different from those of the typical Gonzoczdaris-
species, although agreeing with them in main features (no end-tooth on the large pedicellarize, an
even uncommonly powerful one on the small ones). Thus there seems to be every reason to comprise
these species in a separate subgenus, Dyzscocidaris, as proposed by Déderlein (114). Déderlein
thinks that G. forzgera must be referred to the same group, especially because it also shows the
basal widening on the spines, although only as a trace. It has long been doubtful to me, whether
the two forms figured by Agassiz as G. florigera (Chall. Ech. Pl. 1. Figs.7 and 12), were really the
same species, and my doubt was confirmed, when I had examined the type-specimens in British
Museum. They are not only two different species, they will even undoubtedly have to be referred to
two different genera — and moreover it appeared that among the specimens determined as G. ford
gera still a third form was hidden, which must also form a new genus. The form meant by
Doderlein when he places G. florigera together with clypeata and mikado, is the one figured in
Fig. 12; it is this form of which the spines show traces of the basal widening. It has already been
mentioned above, and a new genus has been established for it: Petaloctdaris, its pedicellarie not
admitting it to be referred to any of the other known genera. Otherwise it is presumably most
closely allied to the two mentioned species. The other form, which is figured in Fig.7, shows no
basal widening on the spines, which are, upon the whole, very much different from those of Petalo-
cidaris; they are highly and rather regularly thorny, evenly tapering. In none of the three specimens
(Chall. St. 204) I have examined, large globiferous pedicellariz were found, but only the small form,

which is quite similar to the small pedicellarie of D¢scocidaris (Pl. X. Figs.6—7); for the present

ECHINOIDEA. I.

NOS
ion

therefore, I think it better to refer it to this subgenus; the spines, to be sure, show no trace of the
widenings peculiar to the two other species, but the not widened spines of the latter are rather
similar to those of this species, for which I propose the name of Discocidaris serrata n. sp.

From st. 192 (Chall.) a specimen is found referred by Agassiz to G. florigera, which it also
resembles rather well (i.e. it resembles the one figured in Fig.12, Petalocidaris florigera). The spines
are much richer thorny than in this species; the ambulacral areas almost naked. The pedicellariz are
very peculiar (Pl. X. Figs. 25, 28). The opening is a long, narrow slit reaching not quite to the point;
a powerfully developed end-tooth is found. The small pediceliaric are essentially of the same structure,
the opening only being somewhat shorter and a little broader. Such pedicellarie have not been
found in any of the other known species, and accordingly this species must form a separate genus,
for which I propose the name of Schizocidaris with the species Sch. assimilis n. sp.").

According to Agassiz (Chall. Ech. p. 43 seq.), Gonzocidarts canaliculata is exceedingly varying;
he thinks that Crdarzs nutrix W.Th. must be regarded as one of the many forms of this species, and
also that G. wvipara and membranipora are synonymous with it. After having examined the speci-
mens of G. canaliculata in British Museum I must admit that it really appears as if they all formed
only one highly varying species, in which a great number of transitional forms connect the easily
recognised extreme forms. If we examine the pedicellarize, we shall get another conviction; we shall
then see that at all events three different species are found among these specimens referred to G.
canaliculata. There is a fact that ought to have made Agassiz hesitate in referring them all to
one species. He quotes the description by Wyv. Thomson (397) how the eggs of C. matrix «are
passed along on the surface of the test towards the mouth, and the smaller slightly spathulate prim-
ary spines, which are articulated to about the first three rows of tubercles round the peristome, are
bent inwards over the mouth, so as to form a kind of open tent, in which the young are developed».
Immediately after this quotation Agassiz (op. cit. p.45) says: «The specimen (PI. II. fig. 2) shows the
manner in which they are held in a sort of marsupium by the folding of the abactinal spines over
the young crowded upon the abactinal system». Thus in this species not only a nursing of the brood
should take place, but the young should even be placed, now round the mouth, now on the apical
area. Even if this were not inconceivable, it would have been worthy of remark; but Agassiz has
no word of it, though it might seem to imply that Cvdaris mutrix is really specifically different from
Gonioc. canaliculata. Wyv. Thomson (397 p.66) also remarks expressly that in G. canaliculata we
have the reverse of the fact in C. matrix: «These spines ... lean over towards the anal opening, and
form an open tent for the protection of the young as in Cidaris nutrix, but at the opposite pole of
the body». There is also another fact that ought to raise the suspicion against the interpretation of
all these forms as one species: most of the specimens are coast-forms, taken on depths of 3—150
fathoms; from this there is a far cry to a depth of 1600 fathoms and more. Beforehand it is very
improbable that the same species should be found in so varying depths. This fact is not mentioned

by Agassiz either. According to my examinations Crdaris nutrix is specifically different from G.

1) Unfortunately I made no more thorough notes on this specimen, as during my stay at Br. Mus. I had no clear
understanding of the fact that it was a genus quite different from the other specimens called G. forigera. I did not get a
clear view of this fact till after my return, when I had examined the pedicellarie more exactly. The peculiar pedicellariz
may, however, be sufficient for the identification of the species, and therefore I do not hesitate to give it a name here.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. rt. 4

26 ECHINOIDEA. I.

canaliculata; among the deep-sea forms at all events one new species is found, and upon the whole
scarcely any genuine G. canaliculata is found among them.

In the typical G. canaliculata the large globiferous pedicellarize do not differ much from those
of Gontocidaris tubaria, or still less from those of G. wmbraculum; they are somewhat narrower, and
the blade is a little curved inward below the rather large opening that reaches to the point; there is
no end-tooth (Pl. VII. Figs. 8, 32). The small pedicellariz, on the other hand, are very different from
those of the genuine Govzocidaris-species, as there is no end-tooth (Pl. VIII. Fig.6). Spicules simple.
— The young are carried on the apical area. «Crdaris» nutrix (Wyv. Thomson’s type specimen
examined): the large pedicellariz (Pl. X. Figs. 3—4, 12, 14) very much resembling those of Stereocidaris
grandis (D6derlein 116. Pl. VIII. 2); the small globiferous ones (Pl. X. Fig. 24) chiefly as in G. canali-
culata. — The young are carried round the mouth.

The two species are most frequently easily distinguished as to their habitus. In C. netrix
the apical area is densely set with rather long, club-shaped spines, between which large pedicellariz
are found abundantly. In G. canaliculata the apical area is set with rather few and scattered, not club-
shaped spines some of which are quite small, so that the area looks rather naked; generally no pedi-
cellarize are found on the apical area. This difference, however, is not absolutely reliable, and without
the pedicellarize the two species are not always to be distinguished with certainty.

It is evident that these two species cannot be referred to the genus Govzocidarts; especially
the small pedicellariz are different from those of Gonzocidaris, as they have no end-tooth. Doéderlein
(116. p. 18) thinks G. canaliculata to be nearly allied to Dorocidaris; to be sure it occupies an extreme
position in the «Dorocidaris»-group, and perhaps it might also be regarded as the only representative
of a special group. In many respects it recalis the «Aeczdaris»-group. «Wirklich nahe Beziehungen
zu einer der bisher bekaunten Arten von Cidariden bietet diese Form jedenfalls nicht dar». — As has
already been mentioned, the pedicellarize of C. matrix are very similar to those of Steveocidaris grandis,
and these two species would seem to have to be referred to the genus Stereocidaris; at all events
there seems to be no objection of consequence to their being referred to this genus, and it might be
difficult to point out a character, which would necessitate the establishing .of a special genus for these
species. The simple spicules are in accordance with those of St grandis (in the other Stereocedarts-
species they are, as mentioned, large fenestrated plates).

Of the species « Goniocidarts» vivipara and membranipora the former (according to Studer, 386)
is synonymous with G. canaliculata, which statement I am able to corroborate from the examination
of a specimen that our museum has received from the museum at Berlin. The other (also according
to examination of specimens from the museum at Berlin) is identical with «Czdaris» nutrix W.Th., as
has already been supposed by Studer (385). As the paper by Wyv. Thomson (397) bears the date
of June rt 1876, and that of Studer (384) the date of July 27" 1876, the name of zzztrzx has the
priority. Now we meet here with a new difficulty. Studer says of G. membranipora (384 p. 455):

Die jungen Crdaris bleiben auf dem Analfelde der Mutter bis zu ihrer vélligen Entwicklung, von den
obern Stachelreihen geschiitzt, die sich kreuzweise dariiber legen». According to this statement this
species would seem nevertheless to carry the young now arround the mouth, now on the apical area.

As this seems to me to be very improbable, I must suppose a mistake to have taken place, so that

ECHINOIDEA. I. BS

the specimen (or specimens?), which Studer has had, with young ones on the apical area, is not
G. membrantpora (= nutrix), but canaliculata, and then it is scarcely from Kerguelen (comp. the fol-
lowing about the occurrence of these two species). When the pedicellarie are not examined — which
has evidently not been done by Studer — it is, as has been stated above, not always to be decided
with certainty, to which of the two species a specimen in hand belongs; this will especially hold good,
when, as the case has been here, the apical area is not to be seen.

Among the rather numerous specimens of these two species exam ned by me (from «Chal-
lenger» at British Museum), S¢ canaliculata was only taken at the Falkland Islands and a station near
those islands, «Chall». st. 315, S¢# wtrix only at Kerguelen. Some specimens from st. 150 («Chall.») near
Kerguelen, 150 fathoms, have pedicellarize as those of the typical S¥%. safrix but the spines are much
longer, three times the diameter of the test; perhaps it is a separate species. Wyv. Thomson (397)
mentions C. xwtrix from Kerguelen, G. cavaliculata from the Falkland Islands. In the same way
Studer’s G. wiwipara (= canaliculata) is from Patagonia, his G. membranipora from Kerguelen. ‘Thus
it would seem that these two species do not occur together; SZ canaliculata is found at the southern
coasts of South America, S¢. zutrix at Kerguelen. Agassiz, to be sure, mentions S¢. canaliculata from
several other localities at Kerguelen, but according to what is shown here his statement is not to be
relied upon. Until a definite proof of the opposite fact comes forth, I must believe that either of these
species has a territory of its own, as represented here.

Among the deep-sea specimens referred by Agassiz to G. canaliculata, I have only examined
two from Chall. st. 156 (the South Polar Sea, 1975 fathoms). No doubt they represent another species.
The large globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. VIII, Fig. 35) recall very much those of the Govzocidaris-species,
but the small ones are like those in canaliculata and nutrix; and thus it would seem that this species
must also be referred to Stereocidaris. The ground-colour is very dark, almost black; the primary
spines are white, the actinal ones highly indented in the edge. Perhaps it may prove to be identical
with «Porocidaris» incerta Koehler. I have not examined the specimens from st. 147 (1600 fathoms)
and 153 (1675 fathoms), but that they are not identical with St. canaliculata or nutrix, which live on
shallow water, may be said a priori with a great deal of probability.

Gontocidaris Mortensent Koehler. Koehler (233 a) in his excellent description of this species
mentions only one form of pedicellariz with <ordinairement un ou deux crochets plus ou moins
marqués» at the point of the valves. This statement does not give sufficiently clear information,
neither does the figure of a whole pedicellaria given by Koehler show the systematically important
structures in a sufficiently exact way. Prof. v. Beneden has most kindly sent me a couple of speci-
mens for examination, so that I am able to supply the informations wanting, and assign to this
uncommonly fine and characteristic species its place in the system. The large globiferous pedicellarize
have no end-tooth; they are quite similar to those of Stereocidaris nutrix, so that I can simply refer
to the figures of the latter. The small globiferous pedicellarie are rather characteristic (Pl. VHI,
Fig. 34); they have no end-tooth, and the opening is small they recall those of «Porocidaris» incerta
very much. The spicules simple. Accordingly this species is no Goniocidaris, but will probably have
to be referred to the genus S¢ercocidaris, to which genus perhaps also «Porocidaris» incerta ought to

be referred.
4"

28 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Of the other species referred to Goniocidaris, G. Déderleini, according to Agassiz, is most
nearly allied to cavaliculata; nothing, however, can be said with certainty, till its pedicellarie have
been examined.

Phyllacanthus australis Ramsay is still to be mentioned. As to its place in the system can for
the present only be said that it belongs scarcely to the genus Phyllacanthus as limited here; where it

is else to be referred we can only learn when its pedicellariz have been examined.

According to the researches reported here the system of the Cidarids will look as follows:

Dorocidaris A. Ag. (emend.).

Large globiferous pedicellariz with well-developed end-tooth; the opening large, rounded or
irregular below, not reaching the point. No limb on the stalk. Small pedicellariz with end-tooth;
tridentate pedicellarize simple; spicules simple.

Species: LD. papillata (Leske), Blaket Ag., (?) micans n. sp.

Distribution: The Northern Atlantic, the Mediterranean. Sublittoral-archibental forms’).

Tretocidaris un. g.

Large globiferous pedicellarize with powerful end-tooth; the opening a quite small pore rather
far from the point. A limb on the stalk, more or less developed. Small pedicellariz like the large
ones, only with a somewhat larger opening. Tridentate pedicellarize simple; spicules simple.

Species: TZ. Bartletti (A. Ag.), annulata un. sp., spinosa un. sp.

Distribution: The warm regions of the Atlantic. Littoral(?)-sublittoral forms.

Stephanocidaris A. Ag. (emend.).

Large globiferous pedicellariz much lengthened and slender with distinct end-tooth; the open-
ing rather small, triangular, a little below the point. No limb on the stalk. Small pedicellariz of the
same structure; tridentate pedicellarize simple. Spicules simple.

Species: .S¢. dzspznosa (Lamk.), annulifera (Lamk.), bracteata (Ag.).

Distribution: The Indian Archipelago, Australia. Littoral-sublittoral forms.

Schizocidaris n. ¢g.

Large globiferous pedicellarize with distinct end-tooth; the opening a long, narrow slit. No
limb on the stalk. Small pedicellarie like the large ones, only the mouth a little shorter and broader.
Tridentate pedicellarize? Spicules?

Species: Sch. assimilis n. sp.

Distribution: Near New Guinea (Chall. st. 192). Sublittoral.

Cidaris Klein (emend.).
Large globiferous pedicellarie with small terminal opening; the blade somewhat prolonged in
a snout-shaped way. No end-tooth. A more or less developed limb on the stalk. Small pedicellaricz
with well developed end-tooth and large, not terminal opening. Tridentate pedicellariz simple
Spicules simple.

1) In the present work distinction is made between the littoral belt, the sublittoral, archibental, and abyssal belt.
The first is reckoned from o—ca. 50 fathoms, the second from ca. 50—ca. 300 fathoms, the third from ca. 300—ca. 1500
fathoms; greater depths are called abyssal. It is impossible to fix the limits between these regions more exactly.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 2

Species: C. affinis Phil. Retnt Déderl., tribulocdes Lamk., galapagensis Doderl., metularia Lamk.,
Thouarsti Val. verticillata Lamk., bacelosa Lamk.

Distribution: Cosmopolitan in the warm seas; the Mediterranean, Japan. Littoral -sub-
littoral forms.

Chondrocidaris A. Ag.

Large globiferous pedicellarie with large, cordate opening, the lower limit of which forms a
projecting lip; the opening reaches the point; no end-tooth; no limb on the stalk. Small pedicellariz
with a more or less developed end-tooth. Tridentate pedicellarize simple (rather highly dentate).
Spicules simple.

Species: Ch. gigantea A. Ag.

Distribution: The Sandwich Islands, Mauritius. Littoral.

Acanthocidaris n. g.

Large globiferous pedicellariz with large opening, irregularly limited below and reaching
the point; no end-tooth; no limb on the stalk. Small pedicellariz of the same structure as the large
ones. Tridentate pedicellarize with delicate, dentate lamellz in the blade. Spicules simple. The spines

long, compressed, curved.

8)

Species: 4. curvatispinis (Bell).

Distribution: Mauritius. Littoral (?).

Stereocidaris Pomei.

Large globiferous pedicellariz with large opening reaching quite to the point; no end-tooth;
no limb on the stalk. Small pedicellarize of the same structure, without end-tooth. Tridentate pedi-
cellarize simple. The spicules often larger, fenestrated plates; in some species simple.

Species: St. japonica Déderl., grandis Déderl., sceptri/eroides Déderl., tdica Doderl., tngolfiana
n. sp., zutrix (Wyv. Thoms.), canaliculata (A. Ag.), Mortensent (Koehler), (?) zzcerta (Koehler).

Distribution: Cosmopolitan. Ljittoral-archibental forms.

Goniocidaris Desor.
Large globiferous pedicellariz with rather small opening reaching the point; no end-tooth.
The valves very short and broad. No limb on the stalk. Small pedicellariz with powerful end-tooth.
Tridentate pedicellarie seem not to be found. Spicules of the common form. The spines more or less
irregularly widened. The test with deep impressions in the angles between the plates.
Species: G. ¢ubaria (Lamk.), geranioides (Lamk.), besertalis Doderl., wmbraculaum Hutton.

Distribution: Australia, Japan. Littoral-sublittoral forms.

Subgen. Discocidaris Déderl.
Pedicellarize chiefly as in Goiocidaris. The spines most frequently much widened at the point
and with basal widening.
Species: D. clyfeata Déderl., mikado Déderl., (?) serrata n. sp.

Distribution: Japan, the Philippine Islands. Sublittoral forms.

Petalocidaris n. ¢.

Large globiferous pedicellariz with small terminal opening, the blade somewhat elongated,

30 ECHINOIDEA. I.

No end-tooth; no limb on the stalk. Small pedicellariz with end-tooth and large, not terminal
opening. Tridentate pedicellariz ?, spicules ?. Spines extended in a more or less flower-like way, trace
of basal widening.

Species: P. florigera (A. Ag).

Distribution: The Philippines (Chall. st. 204) (or New Guinea; Chall. st. 192). Sublittoral.

Phyllacanthus Brandt (emend.).
Synonym: Lezocidaris Desor.

Large globiferous pedicellarize with small terminal opening; no end-tooth; the blade prolonged
in a snout-like way. Limb on the stalk? Small pedicellariz with end-tooth. Tridentate pedicellariz
with the blade filled by a close reticulation forming irregular longitudinal ridges closely set with teeth.
Spicules simple. Spines large and thick, finely striated.

Species: Ph. tmperialis (Lamk.), (?) dubza Brandt, (?) parvespina Woods.

Distribution: The Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, Australia. Littoral forms.

Histocidaris n. ¢.

Large globiferous pedicellarize unknown; small pedicellariz with two rather strong end-teeth (?).
Tridentate pedicellariz of a larger and a smaller form; the blade of the large ones is filled by a
rich net of meshes, the holes of which are rather distinctly arranged in series, and radiate in a fan-
shaped way from the upper end of the apophysis; numerous small thorns on the inner surface of the
blade, especially towards the point; also the apophysis is broad and full of holes. The smaller form
simple. Spicules simple. Spines long and slender.

Species: /. elegans (A. Ag).

Distribution: Australia (New Guinea, the Philippines). Archibenthal.

Porocidaris Desor.
Only large two-valved pedicellariz. The spines with very long neck. Spicules simple.
Species: P. purpurata W. Thoms.
Distribution: The Northern Atlantic. Archibenthal.
Incerte sedis:
Dorocidaris panamensis Ag.
— tiara Anderson.
-- alcockt = —
Stereocidaris tenuispinus Yoshiw.
_ microtuberculatus Yoshiw.
Porocidaris misakiensts ~
— Sharrert Ag.
— Milleri
— Cobost —
— gracilis Doderl.
Phyllacanthus australis Ramsay.

Gontocidaris Déderleint Ag.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 31

When in the diagnoses of genera given here other features than pedicellarize and spicules have
only been mentioned exceptionally the opinion of course is not that these structures should be suffi-
cient for definitive diagnoses. It has already been emphasized above, and I shall here emphasize once
more that all features must be thoroughly examined in order to get the mutual relations of the forms
established. That I have here only treated the pedicellariz more thoroughly is a consequence of the
fact that neither my material nor my time has permitted me to treat the other features more parti-
cularly. The system of the Cidarids cannot get its definitive formulation, until all features have been
examined in a greater number of species (or best in all species). What is given here is a provisional
classification, which can scarcely be correct throughout, but it has the great advantage of the earlier
systems that it is possible to recognise the genera with certainty. Several things, moreover, indicate
that the genera, at all events most of them, have here been correctly interpreted. The species referred
to the same genus are upon the whole of similar appearance, so that the genera may in most cases
be recognised by their habitus alone. Also the distribution seems to become more clear by the
grouping given here. — Whether the genera may be grouped in larger divisions — subfamilies —
cannot be decided at present. In the structure of the pedicellarize there seems only to be a single
feature that might possibly be of some importance for such a grouping, viz. whether the large globi-
ferous pedicellarize have an end-tooth or not. Whether this feature is of so great importance, can

only be decided, when the necessary thorough examinations have been made.

1. Dorocidaris papillata (Leske).
Pl. V, Figs. 6, 7, 8. Pl VIII, Figs. 1, 3, 12, 14, 27. Pl. IX, Figs. 3, 5, 7, 1315, 20, 25, 27. Pl. XI, Figs. 14, 26, 31.
Main synonyms: Cvdaris papillata Weske.
— hystrix Lamk.
— borealis Ditb & Kor.
Dorocidarts abyssicola A. Ag.
Non: Cirdarts affinis Phil.
Principal literature: Sv. Nilsson & A. L. Holst: Collectanea Zoologiz Scandinavicee. 1517.
p. 1. — Ditben & Koren: Ofversigt af Skandinaviens Echinodermer. Kgl. Vetensk. Akad. Hand-
lingar fr ar 1844. Stockholm 1846. p. 255. T. IX. 25—30. — M. Sars: Bidrag til Kundskaben om
Middelhavets Littoralfauna. 1857. p. 109. Oversigt af Norges Echinodermer. 1861. p.93. — A. Agassiz:
Revision of Kchini. Part. II. p.254. PL/I. ete. «Challenger»-Echinoidea (8). p. 38. «Blake»-Echinoidea (9).
p.12. — Wyv. Thomson: Echinoidea of «Porcupine» (395). p.722- Pl. LIX. 1-13. — V. Gauthier:
160. — R. Koehler: 217. p.113, — H. Prouho: 327. — R. Rathbun: '336. p. 611. — C. Stewart
379. — E. A. Verrill: 418 — W. E. Hoyle: Revised List of British Echinoidea. (202). p. 404. — F
Jeffr. Bell: Catalogue of British Echinoderms. 1872. p. 139. 69.
With regard to the great number of other works in which this species is noticed or more
particularly mentioned, reference may be made to Agassiz’s Revision of Echini, Bell’s Catalogue,

and Ludwig (256); there complete lists of synonyms are also given.

32 ECHINOIDEA. I.

This species has been so often mentioned and partly carefully described, that I do not think
there is any reason to describe it here again; so I shall only make some observations with regard to
a few separate features that have not before been described with sufficient exactness, viz. the arran-
gement of the tubercles, the pedicellarize, the spicules, and the structure of the spines.

The interambulacral area: Round each areole there are nearest to the edge about 15 small
tubercles with distinct articular head, and outside of these a new circle of tubercles a little smaller
and situated in the intervals between the inmost ones. Outside of these are found more or fewer small
tubercles according to the size of the animal, decreasing in size inward towards the median line of
the area and outward towards the adjoining ambulacral area. The tubercles do not reach quite to the
median line or to the pore area; a little naked space is left, and this — at all events in larger speci-
mens — is furrowed by irregular transverse furrows crossing the median line from one plate to the
other as also the line of separation between the ambulacral and the interambulacral area; the latter
correspond rather exactly to the lower end of each ambulacral plate. The edges round the highly
depressed areoles are high, the plates slope rather abruptly down towards the median line and out-
ward towards the pore area (Pl. VI. Fig. 7).

The ambulacral area (Pl. VI. Fig. 8). Inside the pores a little tubercle is found on each plate;
these tubercles form a fine, regular row down each side of the ambulacral area, as is commonly the
case in the Cidarids; the primary series it is here called. Inside of this series still a smaller tubercle
is commonly found on each plate, just opposite to the outer one; nearest to the apical area and the
peristome the inner tubercle is commonly found only on one side, alternately — but irregularly — to
the right and the left, and sometimes there is all the way down only a single series of these secondary
tubercles. In young specimens they are only found on the middle part of the area, and only a
single series; sometimes the small spines of these tubercles in the median line of the area raise per-
pendicularly; generally they lie over or between the bases of the primary ambulacral spines. — It is,
no doubt, for want of place that these secondary tubercles appear only in a single series in small
individuals and on the narrow actinal and abactinal end of the area in large individuals. It is espe-
cially on the base of these spines that the peculiar, gland-like «ampulla» (Pl. VIII. Fig. 14) is found
highly developed, which has been more nearly examined by Prouho (327. p.56) and Hamann (184.
p- 28). It is also often much developed on the spines of the apical area.

A transverse section of the large spines (the «radioles») (Pl. XI, Figs. 14, 31) shows that in the
intervals between the crests the outer layer runs out in short, branched thorns that coalesce and form
a coarse reticulation. There is no reason to describe the form of the spines here anew.

Although the pedicellarize of this species have been figured several times, I nevertheless think
it necessary to figure and describe them anew. Perrier’s figures are neither good nor exact; the
same may be said of the figures given by Agassiz (Revision of Echini. Pl. XXIV) and Koehler
(217. Pl.7) — neither of them give an exact representation of the finer structures that are of systematic
importance. Stewart (379) on the other hand has given some excellent figures of the large globi-
ferous pedicellarie, and Wyv. Thomson (395) gives rather good figures of the small globiferous pedi-

cellarize and of the tridentate ones. — I think it unnecessary to give a full description of the pedi-

ECHINOIDEA. I.

Ww
oS)

cellaria, and therefore I only mention the features being of systematic importance; for the rest the
reader is referred to the figures (Pl. VIII. Fig. 27. Pl. IX. Figs. 3, 5, 7, 13—15, 20, 25, 27).

At the point of the large globiferous pedicellarize (Pl. IX, Fig. 3, 5) is found a distinct tooth sepa-
rated from the opening on the inside of the blade by a distinct curve; seen from the inside it appears
as a long narrow point before the upper edge of the opening. A canal is seen to run through this
point, and open on the upper side of the tooth — this canal is the efferent duct from the poison-
or mucous gland enclosed by the blade. The inner opening is large, lengthened, most frequently run-
ning into a narrow point below. The edge round the opening is more or less thickened, with
numerous small teeth and a few large ones placed irregularly. The outside of the blade is highly and
irregularly perforated almost to the very point. The stalk of these and of the other pedicellariz con-
sists of a highly irregular, complicated calcareous network, with no conspicuous free points (limb) at
the transition between the thick: and the thin part. The length of the head is about 1™; the length
of the stalk is somewhat different, but generally it is very short, even shorter than the head. They
are found especially on the apical area, but also in the interambulacral areas, mostly on the
naked spaces.

The small globiferous pedicellariee (Pl. IX. Figs. 13—15, 20) are upon the whole constructed as
the large ones; the tooth at the point is considerably smaller, may be very slightly developed. The
inner opening is comparatively larger than in the large globiferous pedicellarie; the lower edge may
also here be irregular. They are more long-stalked and upon the whole much more slender than the
large ones. They are especially found among the small spines round the radioles and on the peri-
stome, but may otherwise be scattered over the whole test.

The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. IX. Figs. 7, 25, 27) are large and slender: the head is 1—2™™

long, the length of the stalk is very differing, but commonly it is considerably longer than the stalk

85
of the large globiferous pedicellarie. The blades are narrow, straight, and join close together in their
whole length, when shut, or are at all events only apart for a very little space below. The edge is
somewhat thickened and highly dentate; at the transition between the base and the blade the edge
is often very irregularly serrate. The blade is narrow and deep, filled by an irregular network, which
is often, in the lower part of the blade, provided with fine teeth; in the outer part of the blade most
frequently only cross-beams are found connecting the edges with each other. These pedicellarize are
especially found in the middle of the ambulacral areas towards the mouth. In some individuals they
seem to be quite wanting.

The spicules of the tube feet (Pl. XI. Fig. 26), as is known from Perrier and Wyv. Thomson,
are bow-shaped and rather highly thorny. They are situated in two series in the skin of the tube foot,
so as to join each other along one side of the foot — not, however, in a definite line, the ends
catching irregularly in between each other. On the other side they are widely scattered; thus the tube-
foot is closely mailed for 3/, or 2/, of its circumference, the other part is naked (Pl. VIII. Fig. 1). The
naked side seems always to be the oral one; in this side the tentacle-nerve is lying, as shown by
Prouwho (op. cit... Otherwise he also gives a quite correct description of the way in which the spi-
cules are arranged in the tube-feet. — Down towards the base of the tube-foot the spicules become

shorter and less thorny, and here they do not join on either side, and are thus arranged in two com-

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. L i)

34 ECHINOIDEA. I.

pletely separated series. Towards the sucking disk they become larger and more thorny, at last
highly complicate; the arcuate ground-form may, however, always be distinguished. They may here
join on both sides, so that the foot is completely mailed.

Together with Agassiz, Ludwig, Koehler, Bell, ao. I think it unquestionable that the
Mediterranean form C. hystrix Lamk. is identical with this species. The only definite character found
by Philippi and Sars for distinguishing between this latter and D. pafil/ata is the fact that in the
latter there are 16—18 raised, dentate, longitudinal ridges on the spines, in C. hystrix only about 12.
As, however, in the same individual, as well of the northern form as of the Mediterranean one, some
spines may be found with 12—13 ridges, and others with 16—17 such, this character is useless. It
may be possible that the spines in the Mediterranean form are somewhat longer and slenderer than
in the northern form; the tridentate pedicellarize seem also to be somewhat more dentate in the edge
than those of the northern form. I think that it may at most be regarded as an only little marked
variety of D. papillata.

Dorocidarts abyssicola Ag. has by Agassiz himself been referred to D. papillata as a synonym;
whether it may possibly be kept as a separate species, or at least a variety I am not able to decide
from my material (one specimen from U.S. Fish Comm., and one from Mus. Comp. Zool.); it might,
however, seem as if the small globiferous pedicellarie might yield a character tending this way
(Pl. IX. Fig. 14). — In «Revision of Echini» p. 256 Agassiz mentions a variety of Doroc. papillata with
slender, highly dentate spines. Also Rathbun (op.cit. p.611) mentions this variety. Our museum
has received some specimens of this form from U.S. National Museum. A closer examination shows
that it has nothing to do with D. fapillata, it is Cidaris affinis, or a variety of this species.

Dorocidaris papillata is spread over the northern Atlantic and the Mediterranean; for the
present it cannot be said how far south it reaches, nor can it be decided to how great a depth it is
found. As there has proved to be a great uncertainty in the earlier determinations of Cidarids, and
as especially a widely different species, even from a quite different genus, viz. Czdaris affinis, has gene-
rally been confounded with D. papzl/ata, all the statements in literature as to its occurrence are not to be
relied on with certainty. Only so much may be said of its distribution in the Atlantic that it is found
along the coasts of Norway on depths from 100—z200 fathoms, at the Shetland Islands, but not farther
south in the North Sea, south of Iceland («Ingolf»), at the Atlantic coasts of Great Britain, and pre-
sumably at the coasts over the whole of the North Atlantic, as well at the European side as at the
American side (Florida). On the other hand it is not found in the territories of the North Atlantic
where the bottom temperature is negative (the «cold area»). In Bell’s Catalogue the depth is given
to from o—874 fathoms. This is scarcely correct; it seems to be found on no smaller depth than
30—40 fathoms. Wyv. Thomson (op. cit. p. 725) states that he has some small specimens from
ca. 1000 fathoms. DL. papillata is no abyssal form, it seems mostly to be found at a depth of some
hundreds of fathoms. Its having pelagic larvee of the typical Pic/eus-form seems also to agree with
the fact that it does not live on the very great depths.

D. papillata has been taken by «<Ingolf» on st. 1 (62° 30’ N. Lat. 8° 21’ W.L., 142 fathoms; bottom
temperature 7° 8), 1 specimen, and st. 54 (63° 08’ N. Lat. 15° 4o' W. L., 691 fathoms; bottom tempera-

ture 4° 2), I specimen.

ECHINOIDEA., I.

oS)
on

The statements that it has been taken in the Red Sea (Russo 348), at the Canaries, the West
Indies, St. Paul, La Plata, and even at the Philippines, it will be best for the present to leave out of
consideration, until a renewed examination of the material from these localities has been made. The
statement that it is found at the Philippines, is made by Agassiz (Chall. Ech.); but he has himself
expressed a doubt as to the correctness of the determination — and with good reason. I have in
British Museum had occasion to examine the two specimens from the Philippines (Chall. sts. 204 and
210), and have found the one from st. 204 to be a Czdaris sp., and that from st. 210 a Stereocidaris sp.
(I could not enter into a determination of the species.) The statement by Studer (386) that it has
been taken at the Cape Verd Islands, must no doubt apply to Czdaris affinis; he remarks that the
small spines were of a scarlet colour, which agrees with C. afimis, but not with YD. papillata, I am
also fortunate enough to be able to correct the statement by Russo that it is found in the Red Sea,

as Prof. Monticelli has sent me the specimens for examination — they are Czdaris baculosa.

2. Cidaris affinis Phil.

Pl. I. Fig.1. Pl. VI. Figs.g—1o. Pl. VIII. Fig. 2. Pl. IX, Figs. 1, 8—g, 11—12, 17—19, 21—24. Pl. XI. Figs. 1, 22.

Synonym: Cvdaris Stokesti L. Ag. & Desor.

Dorocidaris neapolitana? Ramsay 331.

A. Philippi: Beschreibung einiger neuen Echinodermen nebst kritischen Bemerkungen tber
einige weniger bekannte Arten. Arch.f Naturgesch. 1845. I. p.351. — L. Agassiz & E. Desor: Cata-
logue raisonné des familles, des genres et des espéces de la Classe des Echinodermes. Ann. Sc. natu-
relles. 3 Sér. VI—VIII. 1846—47. — M.Sars: Middelhavets Littoral-Fauna. p. 110. — Wyv. Thom-
son: Echinoids of «Porcupine» (395). p. 726. Pl. LX.

»Es ist mir unbegreiflich, dass man nicht schon langst die C. afinis von der C. hystrix unter-
schieden hat, da sie sich auf den ersten Blick durch dunkler rother Faérbung und kiirzere, spitzere und
rauhere Stacheln auszeichnet — und bei Neapel gar nicht so sehr selten ist», says Philippi (op. cit.
p- 352). It is still more inconceivable that later authors (Agassiz, Ludwig, Bell, a.o.) have reunited
the two species. Wyv. Thomson himself is somewhat in doubt whether C. efius is really speci-
fically different from Doroc. papillata. By a thorough examination it is seen that they are not only
two well separated species, but that they even belong to two different genera. C. afinis is to be
referred to the genus Cidaris s. str., its nearest relations being C. Reimi Déderl., metularia Lamk.
Thouarsti Val. etc. — Although the northern boundary of this species is scarcely found so far north
that it occurs in the territory the Echinid-fauna of which is treated in the present work, I nevertheless
think it necessary to give a careful description of it, partly to prove my assertion that it has nothing
to do with Doroc. papillata, but especially to prevent the two species being intermingled in future, as
they have been so long, to the great injury of the study of the geographical distribution of these
species. In the description those features are especially emphasized, in which it differs from D.
papillata.

In the form of the test, the breadth of the ambulacral and the interambulacral areas, the
number of ambulacral plates for each interambulacral plate (10—12), there is scarcely any difference of

importance between this species and D. fapillata. The interambulacral plates (PI. VI. Fig. 10) are here

5

36 ECHINOIDEA. I.

more closely covered with tubercles; there are ca. 15 on the edge of each areole, and outside of these
there is a circle of tubercles opposite to the intervals of those of the first circle. Outside of these
again several tubercles are found, more or less circularly arranged, so that the whole plate is covered,
with the exception of a quite narrow stripe at the median line, — and on the lower part of the test
it is also covered by the tubercles. No furrows in the edge of the plates. In the depth of the
areoles there seems to be no distinct difference between the two forms.

The ambulacral area is more peculiar (Pl. VI. Fig. 9); the secondary tubercles le here in the
lower edge of the plate, so that they are situated opposite to the intervals between the primary ones
(in D. papillata they, as described above, are placed in the middle of the ambulacral plates, opposite
to the primary tubercles). The whole form of the ambulacral plates is consequently somewhat dif-
ferent from that of D. papillata. Only on the very uppermost and lowermost plates of the area the
secondary tubercles are wanting; in the middle part of the area inside the secondary series some
tubercles are found still a little smaller (the secondary tubercles are somewhat smaller than the primary
ones), placed opposite to the intervals between the secondary tubercles, and consequently opposite to
the primary ones, not, however, very regularly. — The pore area is a little more than half the breadth
of the interjacent space, comparatively a little broader than in PD, fAafzllata, scarcely, however, of any
great importance.

The spines 1—1!/, time the diameter of the test (in Y. papillata ca. 2—2'/, times); they are
evenly tapering, and end bluntly. About 18 longitudinal series of coarse serrations. Between these
longitudinal series fine, slightly branched thorns are found, which do not coalesce and form a reticu-
lation as in /Y. papillata (transverse section Pl. XI, Fig. 1). The radioles round the mouth are short,
blunt, somewhat flat, without any dents in the edge, what they commonly have in ZY. pafillata. As
in this latter an «ampulla» is found at the base of the small spines, especially well developed at those
of the apical area. There seems to be no difference of any importance in the form of the small spines
of the two species.

The pedicellariz are of the structure characteristic of the genus Czdaris. The large globiferous
pedicellarize (Pl. IX. Figs. 9, 22, 24): the mouth is situated quite at the top of the blade which is round
and somewhat bent inward; it is surrounded by a limb that is a little bent outward and provided with
rather large teeth the number and size of which is rather irregular. The upper end of the mouth has
no limb nor any teeth; no end-tooth. The edge of the blade towards the point irregularly dentate. —
At the transition between the broad and the narrow part of the stalk a limb is found of freely pro-
jecting, short calcareous ridges, prolongations of the rind-layer of the thick part of the stalk (Pl. IX.
Fig. 12). This limb is most developed on the large globiferous pedicellarize, but may also be rather
distinct on the small pedicellarize and the tridentate ones. The whole stalk is far more regularly
constructed than in 2. pafillata: here the outer layer consists of smooth longitudinal ridges with small
knob-like swellings, in D. fapillata it is an extremely irregular, more or less spinous reticulation. —
Size: the head ca. 0'7™™, the stalk ca. 2™™, but especially the latter is rather varying.

The small globiferous pedicellariz are of a quite different structure (Pl. IX. Figs. 8, rz); they
have a distinct end-tooth, and the mouth is large and situated a little below the point. The back-side

of the blade is almost without the common holes in the lime, only the basal part is perforated as

ECHINOIDEA. I. 277

usual. — The tridentate pedicellariz are a good deal smaller, but more long-stalked than in D. papil-
lata; the head ca. 0'5™™, the stalk ca. 1™™ or a little more (Pl. IX. Figs. 1, 18, 19, 21, 23). The blade is
somewhat slenderer, and when the pedicellaria is shut there is a wide open space between the blades
below; they join only in the point — scarcely the outer half of the blade and this part of the
blade is then obliquely cut off, while in DY. papillata the whole edge of the blade forms a chiefly
straight line. For the rest the construction of the blade is far more simple and less complicate
than in D. papillata; the edge is finely indented, and only a few smooth beams cross the cavity of
the blade.

It is a curious fact that tridentate pedicellariz seem to be wanting in all the (6) specimens of
C. affinis from the Mediterranean. On the other hand they are found in large numbers, not only in
the ambulacral areas, but all over the test, in 5 specimens from 33° 20’ N. Lat. 77° 5’ W. L. 90 fathoms
(near Florida), which our museum has received from U.S. Fish Commission (Smiths. Inst.) under the
name of Dorocidaris papillata, var. In return the large globiferous pedicellarize are extremely few in
these specimens. Otherwise there seems to be no other difference of importance between these speci-
mens and those from the Mediterranean. To be sure the spines (Pl. VIII, Fig.2) are comparatively a
little longer in the specimens from Florida, but as these are only half so large as the specimens from
the Mediterranean, it may be taken to be a difference of age. To judge from the material in hand
I must, at all events, regard them as being the same species, while I do not venture to decide,
whether a distinction may be made between a Mediterranean variety and an Atlantic one.

The spicules of the tube-feet are arranged as in J. fapillata. They are upon the whole a little
more spinulous than in this latter, but the difference is extremely slight (Pl. XI. Fig. 22).

The diameter of the test of the largest specimen 38™", the longest spine 54™™. The colour of
this species, as has been observed by all the authors that have taken it to be a separate species, is
lively red; the spines are brownish, with darker and lighter bands. The colour keeps rather well in
spirit, sometimes excellently, as in the specimen figured on Pl. I. Fig. 1. As color forms such an
unimportant feature in the specific characters of Echini, much stress cannot be laid upon this point»,
says Agassiz. («Revision» p. 255.) Here, no doubt, it is of some importance, as upon the whole the
colour may be an excellent guide for distinguishing the species, for instance of Achznus.

Among the other Crdaris-species C. Reini Déderl. seems to be the nearest relation of C. a/finis;
they have both of them slender spines and a little limb on the stalk of the pedicellarie. There seems
to be no important difference in the form of the pedicellarice in the genus Czdaris; it will scarcely be
possible to distinguish the species with certainty by means of the pedicellariz, but there seems also
to be characters enough to be got from other features. The spines especially show a rather great
richness in forms in this genus.

Accordingly Cidaris affinis will have to be added to the not few Echinids, found both in the
Mediterranean and at the eastern coast of America. As to its distribution in other places only little
can be said, as it has been intermingled with D. papzllata. No doubt it will be found at the Atlantic
coast of Southern Europe, and, as has been observed above, Studer’s statement (386) of D. papillata
being found at the Cape Verd Islands must surely apply to C. affnis. That it will also be found at

the Azores, may be said with some certainty. It seems to be a more littoral form than D. papillata;

38 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Sars has it from 50—r100 fathoms; the specimens taken by Dr. H. I. Hansen at Syracuse are from
20—30 fathoms. The form mentioned from Florida is stated by Rathbun (336 p. 611) to be from
25—426 fathoms.

3. Stereocidaris ingolfiana n. sp.

Pl. VI. Figs. 1—5, 11. Pl. VIII. Figs. 4, 10, 11, 16, 19—21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 36. Pl. XI. Figs. 12, 16, 17, 23, 28, 30, 32, 33.
Pl. XVI. Fig. r.

Diameter Height Diam. of the peristome Diam. of the apical area Longest spines
35 mm. 27 mim. I4 mn. 15 mim.

32 — 29 — 12 — 13 — 65 mim.
23) 17 — 10°5 — 10'5 — 48 —
9) 20 — Io — 1 62 —
25 ia IS) — 9 = 1255 47,
24 — i a= iB = =
16 — io — 65 — 8 — 50 —
Oe O53 4i= 5 20

As will be seen from the given measures the height of the test is rather varying. Nevertheless
the form is upon the whole very characteristic (Pl. VI. Fig.3). It is broader above than below; the
upper side is generally very flat, and there is, about the middle of the first fully developed interambu-
lacral plate, a rather steep bending from the upper side to the almost perpendicular, below slightly
inward bent sides. Below at the edge of the peristome a rather abrupt bending is likewise found; the
two lowermost interambulacral plates are situated almost horizontally.

The interambulacral areas are 3'/,—4 times as broad as the ambulacral areas; they consist of
5—7 plates. The areoles are deep, the edge round them raised, with a single circle of 15—16 more
conspicuous tubercles; in large specimens these are more indistinct. The other part of the plates is
closely set with very small tubercles, which are in the larger specimens rather distinctly arranged in
irregular transverse rows; in smaller specimens this arrangement is not distinct. Even at the median
line where the plates jo, a narrow naked stripe is scarcely seen, in the largest specimen not at all.
The plates sink somewhat down towards the median line and outward towards the pore area. Even
the lowermost areoles are separated by a rather broad space with distinct tubercles (Pl. XVI. Fig. 1).

The ambulacral areas: There are 10—12 ambulacral plates for each interambulacral plate.
The pore area is half so broad as the middle part of the ambulacral area. The pores are only sepa-
rated by a narrow partition-wall; the outer pore is a little smaller. (In DY. pafpellata and C. affinis the
pores are of equal size; in the latter there is a rather broad partition-wall between them)"). The pri-
mary series of tubercles is only little conspicuous; besides the primary tubercle about 3—5 small
tubercles are found on each ambulacral plate, so that there is no trace of naked intervals; the whole
area between the series of pores therefore appears as a densely granulous stripe in which the bound-
aries between the separate plates are only seen with difficulty (Pl. VI. Fig. 11).

The plates of the peristome are set with numerous small tubercles, but only on the free edge.
— The apical area (Pl. VI. Fig. 4) is, as the other part of the test, closely set with small tubercles.
The genital openings are rather large, the ocular plates are widely separated from the periproct,
which is covered by smaller plates rather regularly arranged.

') The figures (Pl. VI. Figs. 8, 9, 11) do not show this feature clearly.

ECHINOIDEA. I.

39

In a quite young specimen, of a diameter of 7, with only 4—5 interambulacral plates, as yet
almost no small tubercles (and spines) are found, excepting the primary series in the ambulacral areas,
and the circle round the areoles (which are not yet deepened). Nevertheless no naked spots are seen
on the test — there is no space for more tubercles. The apical area is closely set with small
tubercles. There are as yet only 5 plates in the periproct, in the corners between the genital plates
(which have not yet any genital opening). Round the anal opening there is a circle of small
tubercles.

The spines are highly characteristic (Pl. VI. Figs.1—2. Pl. VIII. Fig. 10). Most frequently they
have a wing-shaped crest on the side turned upwards; sometimes 2—3 crests are found, sometimes
none at all. Specimens are found, in which almost all the large spines are provided with wings, and
other specimens, in which only a few spines or none at all have such crests. The more developed
the crest is, the more compressed is the spine, to the very point. Where the crest is wanting, the
spines are almost round and rather evenly tapering. There is a somewhat different number '(1o—16) of
projecting longitudinal ridges with rather distinct thorns or dents. In young individuals (and spines)
these ridges are more conspicuous, and they are here almost similarly developed, the thorns only a
little more conspicuous in one of the ridges. Then the thorns of this ridge increase inordinately in
size, and coalesce more and more from the base outward — and thus the crest is formed (PI. XI.
Figs. 17, 30, 32). Moreover the whole spine, the ridges (especially the crest), and the intervals are
closely covered with delicate, obliquely situated «hairs», the points of which are directed upward or
outward (on the thorns). In dried specimens the spines are somewhat shaggy, and have a whitish tint
from the air that is found between the hairs as in the hairy coat of a plant. In old spines this tint
is not distinctly seen, but in young spines it may be very beautiful. In transverse sections of the
spines (Pl. XI. Fig. 33) these hairs are seen to form a thick, complicated network on the outside of the
outer layer of the spines. — The large spines are almost always turned directly to the side, so that
the animal gets a peculiar flat appearance recalling a wheel (Pl. VI. Figs. 1—2). The spines round the
mouth are flat, and have most frequently distinct, sharp dents in the edge.

The secondary spines are exceedingly numerous, and give the animal an almost shaggy appear-
ance. Round the radioles a single circle of larger flat spines, of a length of 2'/,—3™™, of the common
form is found. In the primary series in the ambulacral areas the spines are somewhat narrower and
only about half the length of those round the radioles, scarcely 2™", the other small spines are still
much smaller, ca. !/,-—1™™, They are not distinctly compressed, and are not strongly pressed against
the test, as is otherwise generally the case in the Cidarids. The spines round the radioles and those
of the outer series of the ambulacral areas are often a little bent at the point and hollowed on the
upper surface (Pl. VIII. Fig. 19), which is especially the case with the ambulacral spines nearest to the
peristome. The spines of the peristome are generally somewhat widened at the point, and have, as it
were, an indication of bisection, a thinner stripe being found downward from the middle of the point
(Pl. VIII. Fig. 20). There is no «ampulla» at the base of the spines, at most a slight indication of
such a one.

The pedicellaria: The large globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. VIII. Figs. 11, 16, 29) recall very much

those of D. pafpillata, but by a closer examination they show no slight difference. There is no

40 ECHINOIDEA. I.

unpaired tooth at the point. The mouth is large, broad below, more narrow above; it reaches to the
very point. The edge is set with small teeth, the upper one on each side somewhat more distinct,
sometimes much larger than the others (Pl. VIII. Fig. 26). These two uppermost teeth may be bent
towards each other and coalesced towards the point, so that a little opening appears on the upper
side of this apparently unpaired end-tooth, and when this is the case the resemblance to the pedicel-
larie of D. fapillata is considerable; but here, however, is never found the rather long, closed part
below the end-tooth, which is found in D. papillata. The lower limit of the mouth generally forms a
fine, regular curve. In a couple of specimens the point of the large globiferous pedicellariz showed a
deviating, but very irregular construction, which was much more like that in D. fafzllata. As these
individuals otherwise agree exactly with the others, this deviation must be taken to be abnormal. It
is a very conspicuous peculiarity in the large globiferous pedicellarize of this species that the back-
side is quite clear without holes all over the outer part of the blade; in 2. pafpzllata the back-side is
highly perforated and of a very complicate construction to the very mouth. — Length of the head
ca. 1™™, the stalk often a little shorter. The structure of the stalk as in D. papillata.

The small globiferous pedicellarize are upon the whole of the same construction as the large
ones (PI. VIII. Figs. 28, 30, 36); the uppermost pair of teeth may also here be coalesced at the points
(Pl. VILL. Fig. 23). I have not been able to find tridentate pedicellarize in any of the specimens in hand.

The spicules of the tube-feet (Pl. XI. Fig. 28) are very characteristic, and yield an excellent
mark by which this species may be distinguished from the other Atlantic Cidarids. They are small
fenestrated plates placed in two separated longitudinal series; they do not join on either side, such as
is the case in D. papillata and Cidaris affinis. They are most developed on the tube feet below at
the peristome, in the upper ones they are more simple and more like the common Cidarid-spicules.
In quite small individuals they are often only much branched, not yet perforated plates. Upon the
whole they are comparatively smaller than in PD. fapillata; they are slightly arched corresponding to
the form of the foot, and are as usual situated transversely on the longitudinal axis of the foot.

In the intestine, the genital organs, and the organs of Stewart numerous spicules are found;
those of the intestine have three rays, the others are larger, irregular plates (Pl. XI. Figs. 12, 16, 23).
The dental apparatus shows no marked peculiarities. The auricles are rather high and narrow; on
the ambulacral areas small and fine processes are found. (In Y. papillata and C. affinis are likewise
found rather well developed ambulacral processes. (Comp. Duncan 129). (PI. VI. Figs. 5—6.)

In some of the specimens the lower part of the spines is slightly reddish; otherwise this species

appears to have no marked colour. The preserved specimens are brownish.

Ingolf» St. 9. (64° 18’ N. Lat. 27°0' W.L. 295 fathoms. Bottom temperature 6° 2). 16 specimens.

— — 16. (65°28) 27°05) — 250 -— — GRA) hee) -—
— — 8x. (61°44 — 27°1r' — 485 — -- Ca)) re =
= 78d (OZ750 9 1257245 oss ae = 4°4). 4 =
— — 85. (63°22!) — 25°21 — 170 — -- ye a —
- — 89. (64°455 — 27°20 — 310 — — Sai) ae —_

MC (Clee Aen TI ee) iste) = 5°r). 2 a

Further we have 5 specimens from the Denmark Strait (64° 42' N. Lat., 27° 43’ W. L., 426 fathoms)
obtained in 1889 by Wandel.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 41

One more locality may be added for this species, viz. «Albatross» 1885, st. 2415, near Florida
(30° 44’ N. Lat., 79° 26' W. L., 440 fathoms) as, according to what has been mentioned above, a specimen
received from U.S. National Museum under the name of Porocidaris Sharreri has proved to be iden-
tical with the species described here. I suppose that it has oftener been confounded with other
Cidarids. At present, however, it is only known with certainty from the stations enumerated here: on
the ridge south of Iceland, between Iceland and Greenland towards the ridge here separating the
Atlantic from the Polar basin, and at Florida. The depth is 170—633 fathoms; accordingly it seems
to be no genuine deep-sea form either.

Recent species of the genus Sfereoczdaris have first been described from Japan by Déderlein
(Die japanischen Seeigel. 116); a species of the same genus, S¥¢. zzdica Déderl. (118) has later been taken
by «Valdivia» in the Indian Ocean in many places and in many varieties, of which a couple, to judge
from the preliminary description, seem to be so very like SY. zzgolfiana, that it will be difficult to
distinguish between them; but Prof. Déderlein, to whom I have sent a specimen of SZ. zzgolfiana for
examination, has informed me that he thinks the two species to be good ones. With the species
described here the occurrence of the genus also in the Atlantic is proved; this genus thus appears to

be cosmopolitan.

4. Porocidaris purpurata Wyv. Thomson.
Pl. VI. Fig. 12. Pl. VIII. Fig. 22. Pl. X. Figs. 1—2, 5. Pl. XI. Figs. 3, 21.

Synonym: Porocidaris gracilis Sladen.

Wyv. Thomson: Echinoidea of «Porcupine» (395) p. 728. Pl. LIX. & LXI. 14—15. — Bell:
Catalogue (73) p.141. — Hoyle: 202. p.4o5. — Sladen: 367.

With regard to this easily distinguished species I have only little to add to the excellent
description by Wyv. Thomson.

The ambulacral areas: Inside the outer, primary series of tubercles a somewhat smaller
tubercle is found in the lower corner of each plate, and moreover a quite small tubercle below the
primary one, which accordingly does not fill up the whole breadth of the plate. There is, however,
some irregularity; one or the other of the small tubercles are not rarely wanting, sometimes both of
them. Also the pores are different from those of the other Cidarids mentioned here, as will be seen
by a comparison of the figures (Pl. VI. Figs. 8—9, 11—12).

The spicules are arranged in the tube feet as in D. pafillata; the two series, however, do not
always join closely, naked spaces are often seen between them, in which only a few spicules are
joining. They are somewhat complicated, the thorns on the outer side coalescing and forming a more
or less distinct net of meshes (Pl. XI. Fig. 21).

Of the very characteristic two-valved pedicellarize Wy v. Thomson (op. cit. p. 729) says: »Their
structure is in every way the same as that of the ordinary three-valved pedicellarie, except in the
number of the valves. All the usual chambers and ridges are developed, and the different muscles
are very evident through the transparent walls», In this statement I do not agree with Wyv.
Thomson. These pedicellarie are highly different in structure from common tridentate pedicellariz,

with which they must most nearly be compared (Pl. X. Fig. 1, 2, 5). They have no apophysis; the whole

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 6

42 ECHINOIDEA. I.

basal part is an undivided cavity in accordance with the fact that muscles are only running in one
direction between the two valves. (In the common three-valved pedicellarize muscles, as is well known,
run in two diverging directions from each valve, and the apophysis may be taken to serve chiefly for
the attaching of these muscles). The structure of the stalk is as in DP. papillata. Other kinds of pedi-
cellarie do not appear to be found in this species (genus).

The spines have no chair»-covering on the outer layer, as was the case in the three preceding
species; but the outer layer itself is beautifully and regularly striped longitudinally, and is in trans-
verse sections seen to be divided into areas, one area for each raised ridge. The more conspicuous
ridges are formed by two parts of equal height, joined almost to the point (Pl. XI. Fig. 3).

«Ingolf», st. 73 (62° 58’ N. Lat. 23° 28’ W. L. 486 fathoms. Bottom temperature 5° 1). 3 specimens.

Hitherto the species was only known from the Farée Channel, from 530—542 fathoms.

The smallest of the specimens in hand (diam. 1o™™, height 7™™, longest spine 27™™) agrees
exactly with the description of Porocidaris gracilis Sladen (op. cit.). The form is the same; the radioles
are not separated, only one tubercle on each ambulacral plate, no openings in the genital plates — as
in P. gracilis; only the colour is more light (bleached) than in Sladen’s specimen. There can be no
doubt, however, that it is a young P. furpurata, and P. gracilis Sladen must then, as supposed by
Bell (op. cit. p. 142) be taken to be synonymous with P. purpwrata.

It is especially by the spines that the young P. purpurata differs from the grown one. In
Sladen’s specimen they were «finely striated longitudinally, the ridges being very slightly prominent
and marked with very faint and indistinct serrations». In the specimen in hand, which is a smaller
one, the spines are very different between themselves, some are provided with rather highly serrate
longitudinal ribs, others are densely covered with coarse thorns, without any trace of longitudinal ribs;
a couple are only faintly serrated, and a single one of the uppermost ones is completely smooth, quite
as in the grown P. purpfurata. Also in the grown one the lower radioles are rather distinctly serrated,
while the upper ones, with the exception of a few coarse thorns, only are finely striated longitudi-
nally. The radioles round the mouth are serrated as in the grown one, only, however, with 1—2 teeth
on either side.

Sladen’s specimen was taken S. W. of Ireland on 51° 1'N. Lat, 11° 50’ W. L., 750 fathoms.

Table of the Cidarids occurring in the northern Atlantic and the Mediterranean,

1. Pedicellarize 2-valved; the spines with highly developed neck .... Porocidaris purpurata W. Th.
a-valveds the ispines) with ‘shontimeckwer cer |.necier 2.
2. The globiferous pedicellarize, as well the large as the small ones,
with an unpaired tooth at the point of the blade; the mouth does
not reach to the point of the blade, and is most frequently irre-
gularly limited below. The spicules formed as spinous arcs..... Dorocidaris papillata (Leske).
The large globiferous pedicellarize withouth end-tooth; the
mouth reaches to the point of the blade, and is regularly limited

below. (Sometimes an unpaired end-tooth may apparently be

ECHINOIDEA. I. 42

found on the large pedicellarie; when this is the case, the spi-
cules (fenestrated plates) will show that it is no Dovoctdaris)..... 3h
3. The large globiferous pedicellarize with large mouth; the blade not
prolonged. The stalk has no limb of projecting calcareous ridges.
The small pedicellarize without end-tooth. The spicules fenestrated
FEMS: che so 0 bia Sbiolt Cia 6 A ONCE Oe Ce BEE TE coer til a OO ea ne Stereocidarts ingolfiana Mrtsn.
The large globiferous pedicellarize with a little mouth at the
end of the somewhat prolonged blade. The stalk with a limb of
projecting calcareous ridges. The small globiferous pedicellariz

withwend-tooth., “ihe spicules spimous: arcs... 202. 4.6 .sac nn qe ne Cidaris affinis Phil.

Fam. Echinothuride.

The classification of the Echinothurids is distinguished by a pleasing simplicity; only three
recent genera are known, Phormosoma, Asthenosoma and Sperosoma, and, what is still more pleasing,
there are only two synonyms of these names, viz. Calveria W.Th., and Cyanosoma Sarasin. To the
genus Phormosoma 10 species have been referred, to Asthenosoma 11, and to Sferosoma 2 species, most
of which species have been described by A. Agassiz, the rest by Wyv. Thomson, Koehler, Déder-
lein, and Yoshiwara, all during the last three decades. Here, then, we seem to have a division of
Echinids where the classification is in the best possible order. — The joy, unfortunately! does not last
longer than until the moment when one has to determine Echinothurids oneself. Then one will soon
reecho the complaint of Sarasin: «Wir wissen nicht, warum es A. Agassiz seinen Lesern so sehr
sauer gemacht hat sich in seinen Challenger Echiniden zurecht zu finden. Um einen Echinothuriden
daraus zu bestimmen ist es nétig die bei den einzelnen Arten gemachten Angaben soregfaltig zu ana-
lysieren, unter Rubriken zu ordnen und dann die Bestimmung zu versuchen» (352. p.96). We might,
however, let that pass, if all the difficulties were to be superseded in this way; but this, unfortunately,
is not the case, as it will soon appear that the two large genera, Phormosoma and Asthenosoma, are
in reality not to be distinguished from each other with certainty.

The chief difference between these genera is stated to be the fact that in Phormosoma the
plates overlap each other in the whole length of the edge, while in Asthenosoma the plates are
narrower in the middle, so that naked interspaces are left only covered by the skin; only the broader
ends of the plates overlap each other in the way peculiar for the Echinothurids. Now there is,
however, the drawback by this statement that the arrangement of the plates is generally only to be
seen in dried specimens. But the Echinothurids are only very little adapted for preservation in dried
state, and if the material in hand be slight, one does not like to destroy it for the sake of determina-
tion. And even if the material is copious enough, so that it is possible to examine the plates exactly,
we are by no means sure to arrive at a result. Bell (72) has shown that there is a considerable varia-
tion as to the size of the uncalcified membranous space between the plates: «this may be quite conspi-

cuous or calcification may have gone so far, that it is difficult to detect the membranous interspace. —
6"

44 ECHINOIDEA. I.

From the specimens before me I am compelled to conclude, that the amount of calcification of the
plates is a point in which individuals living together may differ among themselves».

As another important difference between the two genera Wyv. Thomson (395) emphasizes
the fact that in Phormosoma the actinal side is very different from the abactinal side, while in Calveria
(which is, according to Agassiz, synonymous with Asthenosoma) both sides are rather equal. This
character was excellent, as long as only the species described by Wyv. Thomson were known; but
it could not hold good with regard to the large number of new species brought to light by the

Challenger»-Expedition. Agassiz has also several times declared, although only in an indirect way,

\

that the two genera cannot in reality be kept distinct. In the «Challenger» Echinids (p.87) he says
of young specimens of Asthenosoma pellucidum that they show «how close is the relationship between
the genera Phormosoma and Asthenosoma in spite of the apparently great structural differences existing
between the adult of such species as Asthenosoma Grubet and Phormosoma luculentum. It is mainly
from the comparatively larger number of coronal plates in the former genus, that the young of the
two genera can be satisfactorily distinguished, the other characteristic features, the lapping of the
plates appearing only in larger specimens». Of Phormosoma panamense Agassiz says (13. p.77) that
it has «on the actinal side the characters of Phormosoma most decidedly developed, while on the abac-
tinal side the great elongation of the ambulacral plates and the arrangement of the coronal plates
resemble the structural features of Asthenosoma».

Thus we have no fully reliable characters for the two mentioned genera. We have then to
choose between two alternatives: to make the whole one genus, or to search for better characters.
The first alternative is only a confession of incompetency; we must try the second. — It is beforehand
probable that good characters must be found, as these animals show so rich a variety of interesting
structures. The examinations have also in ample measure borne out the anticipations of finding good
characters. The arrangement of the tube feet, the structure of the spines, the spicules,
and above all the pedicellarie, yield most excellent characters, as well with regard
to genera as to species. The old genera Phormosoma and Asthenosoma prove to be
highly heterogeneous; several new genera will have to be established.

Besides the rich material of the «Ingolf»-Expedition, and what was previously found in our
museum, I have examined the type specimens of all the new species from «Challenger» described by
Agassiz, to which species Prof. Bell most liberaily granted me admission during my stay at British
Museum. Further Prof. Pfeffer has kindly sent me a couple of specimens of Asthenosoma varium
Grube for examination. Accordingly my examinations rest on a very broad base; with the exception
of Phormosoma hispidum, panamense, Asthenosoma longispinum, Tyamat, and Sperosoma biseriatum, I
have examined all known species, and of almost all of them the type specimens.

As already mentioned, it is the spines, the pedicellarize, the tube feet, and the spicules, which
bear the principal part in the new classification of the Echinothurids that is the result of these
researches. Of course also the structure of the test is always of importance; but the all-predominant
importance that has hitherto been attached to the form and mutual relation of the plates, will have
to be very much reduced. In most Echinothurids the primary spines on the actinal side are provided

with a peculiar, hoof-shaped terminal cap, of a structure different from that of the other part of the

ECHINOIDEA. I.

a
lw

spine; it is very large and conspicuous in some species, as Ph. hoplacantha, Sperosoma Grimaldii a. o.,
small in Asthenosoma Gruber, hystrix a.o. These spines are always (?) more or less curved. — In a group
of species: Phormosoma placenta, bursarium, and rigidum (a.o.?) the primary spines of the actinal side
are surrounded by a bag of skin, and their points are swollen in a club-shaped way. In Asthenosoma
Gruber, varium, heteractis, and wrens the spines on the abactinal side, primary and secondary ones, are
inclosed by a thick cutaneous sheath which is constricted one or several times; also in other Echino-
thurids, for instance A. Aystrix, small bags of skin are seen at the point of the small spines. These
spines are distinctly distinguished from the mentioned skin-covered spines in Ph. placenta, bursarium,
and rigidum by being constructed as usual — simple perforated tubes with a long, fine point, while
in Ph. placenta etc. they are swollen at the point, and filled by an irregular calcareous net of meshes.

The tube feet may be arranged in an almost straight line on the actinal side, as in PA. pla-
centa, or they may be trigeminous, about as in an Zchinus, as for instance in A. hystrix, or they may
be arranged in three widely separated series, as in Spevosoma. In some there is no trace of a sucking
disk on the tube feet of the actinal side, in others there is a well-developed disk; on the abactinal side
a sucking disk is never found. The spicules are almost always rather large, irregular, fenestrated
plates situated more or less distinctly in 3—4 longitudinal series. In A. variwm, Grubet, heteractis,
and wrens they are very slightly developed, only small, branched calcareous pieces, rarely with a hole.
— The spheeridize, which follow the tube feet quite up on the abactinal side, show no differences so
great that they can be of any systematic importance. The pedicellariz, on the other hand, are of the
greatest importance with regard to the classification.

No less than 5 different kinds of pedicellariz are found in the Echinothurids, viz. the four
kinds known from the Kchinids, and further the very beautiful form, described by Wyv. Thomson
in A. fenestratum, the tetradactylous pedicellariz. Only the tridentate and the triphyllous pedicel-
larice are found in all Echinothurids, each of the other kinds are only found in a single genus. — The
tetradactylous pedicellarize have been so excellently described and figured by Wyv. Thomson, that
I need not add anything. Globiferous pedicellarie were hitherto unknown in the Echinothurids; I
have found them in A. pellucidum (in one of the type specimens from Chall. st. 192; the other speci-
mens I have not seen). They are highly primitive; the skeleton consists of three simple rods, a little
widened below. No muscles seem to pass between them, which corresponds very well with the fact
that the three glandular bags are quite inclosed by a common skin; the pedicellaria cannot be opened
as other pedicellarie. The valves have only half the length of the head, and they are placed between
the glandular bags (Pl. XIII. Fig. 24). There can scarcely be any doubt that this interesting form of
pedicellarize is to be interpreted as a very primitive globiferous pedicellaria.

Neither were ophicephalous pedicellarize hitherto known in the Echinothurids. The form of
pedicellarize figured and described by Wyv. Thomson as ophicephalous pedicellariz, is indisputably
the triphyllous pedicellariz, very similar to the triphyllous pedicellariz of the Echinids, only some-
what larger. Genuine ophicephalous pedicellariz I have only found in the new form Zvomikosoma
Koehlert, described here. They are very characteristic, the blade is highly constricted just above the
basal part, and abruptly widened above (Pl. XIV. Figs. 19, 23, 25). The somewhat contorted arc on the

lower side of each valve, so characteristic of the ophicephalous pedicellariz, is here typically developed,

46 ECHINOIDEA. I.

so that there can be no doubt that it is a genuine ophicephalous pedicellaria. It is a highly curious
fact that each of these three kinds of pedicellariz, two of which show a very perfect development, are
only found in a single genus, while none of the other Echinothurids seem to have a corresponding
form of pedicellarie.

The tridentate pedicellarie are very richly developed in the Echinothurids. Most frequently
their form is simple; the valves are leaf-shaped, and the blade is more or less filled by a net of meshes
which may be very spinous. In another common form the edges of the blade are involuted, so that
only the point of the blade is somewhat widened; in this form the blade is commonly strongly bent,
so that the valves are widely separated, and only join with their points when the pedicellaria is closed.
Both these forms may be found in the same species; and in a group of species, 4. varium and the
species most nearly allied to it, even three different kinds of tridentate pedicellariz are found, viz.
besides the two mentioned forms a short, broad one with coarsely serrate edge (PI. VIII, Figs. 4, 27).
A peculiar short and broad form is found in Ph. luculentum; it recalls to some degree an ophice-
phalous pedicellaria, but as it has no indication of an arc, there can scarcely be any question of inter-
preting it as any thing else than a form of the tridentate pedicellaria. The tridentate pedicellarie
may be very large, especially those with involuted edge; these have commonly a very short neck.

The triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XII, Pl. XIII. Fig. 23) are very well developed in the Echino-
thurids; peculiar to these in comparison with the triphyllous pedicellariz of the Echinids is the fact
that the upper edge of the apophysis spreads over the lower part of the blade, and continues up along
its sides; in some, for instance Ph. placenta, this «cover-plate» is not much developed, in most species
it is highly developed, and covers a great part of the blade. Generally there are then some large
holes in the median line, and some smaller holes around; the part continuing upward along the lateral
edges of the blade, is most frequently without holes. The upper edge of the blade is generally finely
serrate. The holes in the blade are always placed in rather regular curves from the middle obliquely
upward on either side. — The peculiar bottle-shaped, two-valved pedicellaria, figured by Agassiz from
Phormosoma tenue (Chall. Echinoidea. Pl. XLIV. Fig. 21) is presumably an abnormal form. I have
examined a couple of the type specimens, but have only found the common, three-valved form.
Agassiz (Chall. Echinoidea. p.84) thinks that «this bottleshaped pedicellaria is only a modification of
the ordinary type of pedicellarie, in which the terminal edge becomes raised to form a spoon-shaped
valve». This is absolutely wrong; one form is a triphyllous pedicellaria, the other a tridentate one.

The stalk of the pedicellariz in by far the greatest number of Echinothurids is thin, irregularly
perforated, not distinctly tube-shaped (Pl. XIV. Fig. 31). In the large tridentate pedicellaria, as in A.
varium, also the stalk is somewhat coarser; the stalk of the ophicephalous pedicellarize of Zromzkosoma
is a rather thick tube. In Ps. astertas the construction of the stalk is quite exceptional among the
Echinothurids; it consists of some long, very thin calcareous threads, only united at the ends of the
stalk, at most connected in the intervening part by quite few transverse ridges.

Also the inner anatomical structure seems to yield good systematic characters. Thus Bell
(Catalogue p.142) mentions as a chief difference between the genera Phormosoma and Asthenosoma that
the latter has highly developed «longitudinal muscles» dividing the body-cavity into chambers, while

such muscles are wanting in Phormosoma. — To this, however, is to be remarked that the specimens

ECHINOIDEA. I. 47

of Phormosoma placenta 1 have opened, had typically developed, but, to be sure, very fine and fragile
longitudinal muscles. Bell (69) has likewise shown that the organs of Stewart are rudimentary or
wanting in Ph. placenta, bursaritwm, and tenwe, while in other forms they are highly developed, as
has been shown by Sarasin (352) with regard to A. wrens, and by Koehler with regard to «PA.
2uranus» (220).

If we now look over the Echinothurids with regard to the structures mentioned here, we shall
see that the old genera Phormosoma and Asthenosoma cannot be kept up to the extent in which they
have hitherto been taken; several new genera will have to be established. The species will have to be
grouped in the following way:

Phormosoma placenta. The primary spines on the actinal side are club-shaped, inclosed by a
thick bag of skin. The tube feet on the actinal side arranged in a single series; no sucking disk
developed. Tridentate pedicellarize simple, with leaf-shaped, rather deep valves having only a slightly
developed net of meshes at the bottom. The spreadings from the upper end of the apophysis do not
reach to the lateral edges of the blade. Very nearly allied to this species is Ph. bursartum A. Ag.
The spines on the actinal side are as in Ph. placenta; on the abactinal side the spines are curved, by
which feature it is distinguished from the latter species. The pedicellariz are as in Ph. placenta; the
tridentate pedicellaricze occur (in the same individual) in a long, narrow form (Pl. XU, Fig. 1), and a
short, broad form, as it will be described below in Ph. placenta (Pl. XII. Figs. 2, 3); (in this species
both forms do not appear to be found in the same individuals). The narrow ones have often some
rather large, inward directed teeth a little inside of the edge on the lower part of the blade. In the
triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XII, Fig. 28) the cover-plate is a little more developed than is the case in
the form typical for Pz. placenta; but in this species similar triphyllous pedicellariz may also be found
together with the typical form. The spicules form two longitudinal series placed just above either
edge of the partition-wall in the tube foot; from the middle of the lower side of the spicules a continu-
ation passes into the partition-wall, by which means a dark line appears along the middle of each
series of spicules. Such continuations from the spicules into the partition-wall are not seen in P/.
placenta, and seem upon the whole not to be found in other of the Echinothurids examined here.
Besides the two longitudinal series more or fewer scattered spicules are found, sometimes so many,
that the chief series become indistinct. The spicules are the common irregular fenestrated plates,
perhaps a little larger than in Ph. placenta. No sucking disk is found.

Agassiz (Chall. Ech. p.g9 seq.) is not quite sure whether this species is not possibly identical
with Phormosoma luculentum; «more abundant material may prove, that the differences noticed,
although important, are simply individual characteristics partly due to age». He takes much care to
show, in which features the two species are distinguished — a rather superfluous work! The two
species are very different, which may be seen directly by a glance at the figures given by Agassiz,
and, as will be shown here, they cannot even be referred to the same genus. On the other hand
Agassiz unfortunately has not observed that Ph. dursarium is very similar to placenta; it would have
been of considerably higher importance, if we had been informed of the characters by which it is
distinguished from this latter. To be sure Agassiz (Chall. Ech. p. 100) observes that it is distinguished

from Ph. placenta «in the greater height of its coronal plates and the presence of large primary tubercles

48 ECHINOIDEA. I.

extending both in the ambulacral and interambulacral areas far towards the abactinal system». This,
however, seems to be no conspicuous difference; on the other hand the curved spines on the abactinal
side and the peculiar feature with regard to the spicules may perhaps be taken to be good characters
of this species.

One more species must be classed with the two mentioned ones, viz. Phormosoma rigidum A.
Agass. It resembles very much P. placenta. ‘The primary spines on the actinal side are covered
with skin, what I have been able to substantiate on the type specimen?). The pedicellarie as in Ph.
placenta; only a narrow form of tridentate pedicellariz has been found (Pl. XII. Fig.6). The spicules
are placed in three rather distinct longitudinal series; they are a little lengthened, and are almost
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the foot. No sucking disk. — It seems to be rather difficult after
the only specimen in hand to give any sure character for the distinguishing between this species and
Ph. placenta, nor do we get any guidance from the description by Agassiz; to be sure he has
observed that the actinal side reminds very much of Px. placenta, but otherwise he does not seem to
regard them as more nearly allied. In reality it is not improbable that they may be the same species.
Ph. rigidum, it is true, has only been taken at New-Zealand, and Pk. placenta only in the northern
part of the Atlantic, — but if Ophzomusium Lymant can be found as well in the Atlantic as in the
Pacific (which is a sure fact), the same may also be the case with Px. placenta. New material, how-
ever, will be necessary for the decision of the question.

The three mentioned species form a separate group, sharply distinguished from all other
Echinothurids, as far as known, above all by their peculiar, skin-covered spines on the actinal side.
Agassiz, to be sure, thinks that this feature has no special systematic importance. «The presence of
sheated spines in two species of Phormosoma shows that this character, which at first sight seems to
separate so strikingly from the rest of the species of the group Asthenosoma grubei, is evidently one
of little value, and which may be more or less developed in specimens of the same species in the
same state of growth» (Chall. Ech. p. ror). — As already mentioned above, the facts here put together
by Agassiz are quite different: in A. gvwbez it is the spines on the abactinal side that are wrapped
by a bag of skin, and the spine itself is of the common structure, a perforated tube ending in a fine
point; in P. placenta and the species allied to it, it is the primary spines on the actinal side that are
clavately widened in the point and wrapped by a thick bag of skin. These spines must, of course, be
compared with the primary spines on the actinal side of the other species; but then we find a marked
contrast, these spines of the other species not being covered with skin — as far as is known —
but ending in a larger or smaller hoof, distinctly marked off from the spine itself. There can be no
doubt that the three mentioned species form a separate genus, to which, of course, the name of Phor-
mosoma is due. The other species referred to Phormosoma must be referred somewhere else. Possibly,
however, Ph. panamense is also a genuine Phormosoma; Agassiz (13) says that its actinal side has
«the characters of Phormosoma most decidedly developed»; otherwise he takes it to be nearly related
to Ph. tenue, but thinks that perhaps it may prove to belong to a new genus «intermediate between
Phormosoma and Asthenosoma». The description gives otherwise only very incomplete informations of
this species, and no figures are given.

1) As this specimen is said by Bell (69) to have disappeared, I must observe that it has later been found again.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 49

Another very distinctly marked group is formed by the species Asthenosoma varium Grube,
Grubet Agass., urens Sarasin, and feteractis Bedford, all which species I have had occasion to
examine. The primary spines on the actinal side are curved, and end with a thin, but rather long,
little conspicuous hoof; they are green with dark rings. All the spines on the abactinal side and the
secondary ones on the actinal side are covered with skin; on the larger spines the bag of skin is
repeatedly constricted (Chall. Ech. Pl. XVI), on the small spines there is only a simple bag of skin at
the point (poison apparatus -—— Sarasin 350, 352); these skin-covered spines end in the usual point.
The tube feet are placed in three dense series; in the actinal tube feet a well developed sucking disk
is found. The spicules are small, irregularly branched, rarely with a single hole (Pl. XI. Fig. 20); only
just below the sucking disk a few larger fenestrated plates are found. They are placed in 2~-4 series,
but only in the outer part of the foot, nearest to the sucking disk; in the other, larger part of the
tube foot only quite few scattered spicules are found, and also in the abactinal tube feet only very
few spicules are found. This feature of the spicules also separates this group of species very distinctly
from all the other Echinothurids.

The pedicellarize of these species are especially characteristic (while on the other hand there is
only very little difference in this respect between the species themselves). Only tridentate and _tri-
phyllous pedicellariz are found here, but in return the tridentate ones are found in no less than three
well marked forms. In the largest form the blade is narrow, only widened in the point and provided
with 2—3 very coarse indentations which work into each other when the pedicellaria is shut; below
the blades are then widely separated; there are no fine teeth in the edge of the blade (Pl. XIV.
Figs. 3, 7). Now, to be sure, I have only seen this form in A. variwm and Gruber, but I think there
is no doubt that it is also found in the two others. There appears, besides, some difference between
A. varium and Grube just with regard to this form of pedicellariee, they being much slenderer in A.
vartum than in the other; in both they have a length of 2—2:2™™ (the head). The neck is quite short.
— This difference in the pedicellariz of the two species indicates that 4. Gruber is really a good
species, and not synonymous with A. variwm, as Agassiz is inclined to think (Chall. Ech. p. 84).

The second, smaller form of tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XIII. Figs. 4, 27) reminds very much of
ophicephalous pedicellarize; but as no indication of ares is found here, there can be no question of
referring them to this kind; they are a highly modified form of tridentate pedicellarie. The blade is
short and broad, filled by a rich net of meshes, and with 2—3 large indentations in the edge, which is
otherwise smooth as in the large form. When the pedicellaria is shut the blades join with the excep-
tion of a quite small space at the base. Also this form has a very short neck. The length of the
head r2—15™™, This form as well as the following one and the triphyllous pedicellarice are quite
identical in all four species. — On Pl. XVI. Figs. 10 and 11 in the «Challenger -Echinids Agassiz
gives tolerably recognizable figures of this and the following form of pedicellarie; — «large, short-
stemmed» and <small-héaded, long-stemmed pedicellarize» they are called. Pl. XLIV. Fig. 34 likewise
gives a rather good figure of a valve of the second tridentate form, and Fig. 36 of the third form,
which is here called «large-headed». But it would be difficult to say what is meant by Pl. XLII.
Fig.9, and Pl. XLIII. Fig. 2, although the former is given as a «long-headed, long-stemmed», the latter

as a <long-stemmed, small-headed» pedicellaria of A. Gruéei, On the other hand the pedicellaria

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 7

50 ECHINOIDEA. I.

figured on Pl. XLIL Fig. 8, which in the explanation of the figures is called a «globular-headed,
short-stemmed pedicellaria» of A. Grudez, is easily recognizable; but does it really belong to A. Gruber?
I have not been able to find such pedicellarize, neither in A. Gruber nor in the other allied species.
But it is strikingly similar to the peculiar short-headed pedicellaria of Ph. luculentum figured by
Agassiz (Pl.X.a. Fig. 7, and Pl. XLIV. Figs. 25—26), and I must suppose a confounding to have
taken place.

The third, smallest form of tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIV. Fig. 10) is more simple, but also
highly characteristic. The blade is simple, but the apophysis continues into it as a high, sharp,
coarsely serrate keel; in the larger specimens of this form the keel reaches to the very point of the
blade, in the smaller generally only to the middle of the blade. On the sides of the keel there is a
rather coarse net of meshes which is, however, far from filling the blade; in the small specimens this
net of meshes is only slightly developed. The edge of the blade is finely serrate. When the pedicel-
laria is shut, the edges join through the whole length, only a quite small opening is found below.
This form has a rather long neck. The head o5—1™", — In the triphyllous pedicellariz the cover-
plate is well developed, with a few holes; the edge of the blade is beautifully rounded and finely
serrate (Pl. XII. Fig. 18). The stalks of the pedicellariz are of the common structure, only somewhat
stronger than is else the case in the Echinothurids.

This group of species is very sharply distinguished from all the other Echinothurids, and must
form a separate genus, which will, of course, get the old name of Asthenosoma. The other species
referred to Asthenosoma do not justly belong to this genus, no more than the other species referred to
Phormosoma do in reality belong there.

As mentioned above, Agassiz is inclined to think that A. Grudez is identical with A. varie.
Also de Loriol (246) advocates the same opinion. «La réunion de ces deux espéces me parait fort
probable; cependant les exemplaires d’Amboine paraissent différer de ceux que M. Agassiz a fait
figurer, par leur forme circulaire, un arrangement des plaques un peu différent dans les zones poriféres
et, aussi, par la structure de lappareil apical qui, d’aprés le dessin ne serait pas la méme» (p. 367). To
this may be added the difference of the large pedicellarize pointed out above. — As I have not had
both species for examination at the same time, and have moreover only seen a large specimen of 4.
Grubet and a couple of small ones of 4. variwm, I shall give no decided opinion of this question.

In the work quoted above de Loriol further describes a young Kehinid which he calls
Asthenosoma varium?? — 11 me parait extrémement probable que le petit exemplaire..., qui est un
jeune dune espéce de la famille des Echinothurides, peut étre envisagé comme celui d’ Z’dAsthenosoma
varium Grube». It is scarcely an Echinothurid at all, far less a young one of 4. variwm. As appears
from the description and the figures, the arrangement of the pores (a single, regular series), the spines,
the buccal membrane, the apical area are all so different from what is else characteristic of the Echino-
thurids, that there can certainly be no question of its being referred there. For the present I shall
express no conjecture as to where it may really have to be referred.

Ludwig (257) is inclined to think that one of the specimens examined by him is a different
species from A. variwm, especially because its large pedicellariz are different from those of A. varzem.

The figure given shows, however, that it is only the second, broad form of tridentate pedicellariz that

ECHINOIDEA. I.

on
-

Ludwig has found in this specimen, while he has not seen this form in the other specimens. I shall
express no opinion whether it be otherwise the same species or not.

Asthenosoma hystrix. The tube feet are placed in three dense series; a well developed sucking
disk is found in the actinal tube feet. In the upper part of the tube foot the spicules are large, irre-
gular fenestrated plates quite inclosing the foot; in the lower part of the foot they are placed in two
distinctly separated series, and are more or less rod-shaped, with few holes (PI. XI. Fig. 29). The pri-
mary spines on the actinal side end in a little hoof. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz are
found. Of tridentate pedicellarize two forms are found, not very sharply distinguished. In the larger
form (Pl. XIV. Fig. 26) the edges of the blade are involuted, only the point is a little widened, with a
remarkably irregular, finely serrate edge. In the smaller form (Pl. XIII. Figs. 17—18) the involuted
part of the blade is shorter, the widened part comparatively larger and less irregular in the edge;
when the pedicellaria is shut, the valves are far less separated below than in the larger form (see
Wyv. Thomson: «Porcupine»-Ech. Pl. LXIV. Fig. 5). This form occurs in very varying sizes. In the
triphyllous pedicellarie the cover-plate is highly developed, with a few, large holes along the
median line; the edge finely serrate (Pl. XII. Fig. 34). The stalk of the pedicellariee of the common
structure.

It is evident that this species is not nearly allied to Asthenosoma, as here limited. Accordingly
it must form a separate genus keeping the name of Ca/verza, which was originally given to it by
Wyv. Thomson, and which it has unjustly been deprived of. To the same genus «Asthenosoma
gracile A. Agass. will further have to be referred. Its pedicellarize (Pl- XIII. Fig. 3) agree so exactly
with those of C. hystrix, that no distinct specific difference seems to be found in this feature; only
the smaller form of tridentate pedicellariz is a little slenderer than in C. hystrix. The primary spines
end in a small hoof as in C. hystrix; the tube feet are arranged in the same way as in this latter.
The spicules are rather large, irregular fenestrated plates; in the lower part of the tube foot they are
smaller and arranged in two well separated series, in the upper part they join completely, and form a
close mail round the foot, as figured by Wyv. Thomson from C. Aystr7x («Porcupine»-Ech. Pl. LXIV.
Fig. 3). The sucking disk well developed. — Agassiz, who has seen, to be sure, that this species is
very similar to C. hystrix, mentions in his description of it (Chall. Ech. p. 98) some peculiarities with
regard to the arrangement of the tubercles as «special characters»; in pedicellariae and tube feet no
distinct specific difference seems to be found, so that for the present we must rest satisfied with the
statements of Agassiz.

I discovered a very interesting feature by the examination of the type specimen of this species.
Some of the secondary spines were swollen at the point (Pl. XIV. Fig. 27), and in the
swollen part proved to be sitting a little parasitic Copepod. This seems to be a case of
parasitism hitherto quite unknown, and in interest scarcely below that found by Koehler: the gall-
forming, parasitic Copepoda in «Phormosoma wranus» (229)").

The characters here mentioned for Calveria gracilis as well as the mentioned feature of the
parasitic Copepod, apply only to the specimen from Chall. st. 200. — Of some specimens from sts. 184
and 219 Agassiz says that he refers them to this species «with considerable doubt», in which he is

1) The parasite will be described by Dr. H. I. Hansen in Vidensk. Medd. fra Nat. Foren. Kobenhavn.

7

52 ECHINOIDEA. IL

quite right. They belong to two different species, most likely also to different genera, and none of
them has any relation to C. gracilis.

The specimen from st. 219 has a remarkable form of tridentate pedicellarize; the blade is long,
narrow, with uneven, finely serrate edge, deep and in the lower part filled by a net of meshes. The
valve figured on Pl. XIV. Fig. 20 is from one of the smaller pedicellariz. I have only found this form
of tridentate pedicellarie. The triphyllous pedicellarize (Pl. XII. Fig. 13) have a well developed cover-
plate with few holes; the edge finely serrate. The stalk of the pedicellarize of the common structure.
The spicules are large fenestrated plates arranged in two well separated series; the sucking disk well
developed. The tube feet are arranged in three series. None of the primary spines on the actinal side
are whole, so that nothing can be said of the way in which the point is formed; there is, however,
certainly no skin-bag round the point. This species must probably form a separate genus. As, how-
ever, no quite sufficient characterization can be given of it here, I shall propose no name for it, but
be contented with having pointed out that it has no relation to C. gracilis.

The specimen from st. 184 has tridentate pedicellariz somewhat recalling those of Phormosoma;
but they are distinguished from the latter by the fact that the widenings from the upper end of the
apophysis reach quite to the edge of the blade (Pl. XIII. Fig. 26); (in Phormosoma they, as stated above,
end on the middle of the side of the blade.) The triphyllous pedicellarize are similar to those of the
specimen from st. 219. The stalk of the pedicellarize of the common structure. The spicules are
lengthened, narrow plates, arranged in 2—3 longitudinal series; no sucking disk is found. On the
actinal side the tube feet are arranged in a single regular line (on the abactinal side the arrangement
was indistinct in the specimen). All the primary spines on the actinal side are broken, so that the form
of the point cannot be decided. — That this species has no relation to C. gracilis or to the specimen
from st. 219 is evident. It seems to be nearly related to «Pf.» ¢enwe, and would then have to be
referred, together with this latter, to the genus Echznosoma. (See farther down p. 57.)

Although iu the text Agassiz expresses a strong doubt whether the two species here men-
tioned, be really «4.» gracilis, he nevertheless afterwards cites the stations from which they have been
obtained, among the localities of this species without adding any interrogation; this way of proceeding
is very objectionable — and this is, unfortunately, not the only case. I shall express no opinion
whether the specimen(s) from st. 169 is really C. gracilis, as I have not seen it. It is not to be relied
upon with certainty, until the pedicellariz ete. have been examined.

Asthenosoma» fenestratum Wyv. Thomson is by Bell (72, 73), and Koehler (229) thought to
be synonymous with «4.» hystrix. It has also to be admitted that there is a striking similarity as to
habitus between the two species; but a closer examination of the pedicellaria shows that the question
is so far from being of one species, that they will even have to be referred to different genera. —
There are three kinds of pedicellarize, tetradactylous, tridentate, and triphyllous ones. The tetradac-
tylous ones, which have been so excellently described and figured by Wy v. Thomson («Porcupine»
Echinoidea. Pl. LXVI. Figs. 5—6), are something quite unique among the Echinids, and consequently
an excellent character of this genus. Bell (72), to be sure, thinks it to be an abnormal form of pedi-
cellarize, as he has not been able to find it in the numerous specimens he has examined. As, how-

ever, I have succeeded in finding this form also in A. coriaceum Ag., there can, of course, be no doubt

ECHINOIDEA. I.

wn
1 Go

that it is a normal form of pedicellarize characteristic of this group of species. Of tridentate pedicel-
laricee two kinds are found. The larger form has not been seen by Wyv. Thomson, but I have
found it on a fragment kept in British Museum under the name of «Calveria Phormosoma», but being
undoubtedly an original specimen of Wyv. Thomson’s Calveria fenestrata. The edges of the blade
are much involuted, only the point is widened and deeply indented in the edge (Pl. XIV. Fig. 32). The
valves are highly curved outward, so that they are wide apart when the pedicellaria is shut. The
length of the head up to 2™™, The other form is very varying according to its size (Pl. XIV. Figs. 8,
17, 18, 24). Larger specimens recall to some degree the large form, but the widened part of the blade is
comparatively larger, the involuted part smaller; the edge of the widened part is coarsely sinuate. When
the pedicellaria is shut the valves are only a little apart (the figure by Wyv. Thomson, Pl. LXVII, 7).
In the very smallest ones only a quite small space below is involuted, and the edge of the upper
part is quite straight. All transitions between these forms are found, so that they can only be inter-
preted as modifications of one kind. heir neck is short, the stalk of the common structure. The
triphyllous pedicellariz have the cover-plate much developed, and are lengthened and narrow; the
edge finely serrate (Pl. XII. Fig. 33). — The primary spines on the actinal side are curved and end in
a little hoof. The tube feet as in C. hystrix arranged in three separated series; the spicules large,
irregular fenestrated plates, in the lower part of the tube foot arranged in four separated series; the
sucking disk well developed. As characteristic of this species Wyv. Thomson lays stress on the
large membranous interpaces between the plates; as Bell (72) has shown that this feature is very
varying this character is not reliable. For the present there is no other sure character than the pedi-
cellariz, and even if the tetradactylous ones be wanting, which seems most frequently to be the case,
be it now that they have fallen off, or perhaps may be quite wanting in some individuals, the tri-
dentate pedicellarize are sufficiently characteristic, so that no confounding can take place between this
species and Calveria hystrix, A separate genus must be formed for this species; I propose the name
of Arzeosoma!). —- No doubt it is this species that Agassiz (6) described as Asthenosoma Reynoldsit,
but later (9) retired as a synonym of A. hystrex.

To this genus will further have to be referred 4. coriacewm Ag. Of this species I have
examined a specimen from Chall. st. 169. This station is not enumerated by Agassiz as a locality of
the species, but according to the statement of Prof. Bell the determination of the animal has been
made by Agassiz, so that it may be taken to be due to an omission that this station has not come
in. — The tetradyctylous pedicellarize agree exactly with those of A. /enestratum, so that no specific
difference seems to be found in this structure. They were only found on the upper side, and only a
few ones, as it was almost rubbed off. Of the tridentate pedicellarie I have not found the largest
form. The smaller form (Pl. XIV. Fig. 5) is especially highly developed, the head up to 2™™ long. The
blade is filled by a very complicated net of meshes, more developed than in 4. femestratum. As in
this latter, forms are also here found with almost straight edge, as well as such as are rather similar
to the large involuted form, and all transitions between them. Triphyllous pedicellariz chiefly of the
same form as in A. fenestratum (Pl. XII. Fig. 27). (The form figured of A. /enestratum with the cover-

plate open in the median line, is not constant; they are as commonly found with the projections

') dpatwog — thin.

54 ECHINOIDEA. I.

coalesced, so that a series of large holes is found along the median line — and they may also be
found of the form, figured of A. cordacewm). The pedicellarize (the tridentate ones) with short neck;
the stalk of the common structure. The tube feet in three series. The spicules (Pl. XI. Fig. 15) are
not so compact fenestrated plates as in 4. fenestratum, the holes are much larger and fewer. In the
lower part of the tube foot the spicules are more narrow, at last only fine, thorny, irregular needles,
often a little widened as small fenestrated plates in one end or in both ends, or they have a larger hole
in the middle. Below they seem to be arranged in four longitudinal series, above they inclose the
whole foot as a close mail. The sucking disk well developed in the actinal tube feet. The primary
spines on the actinal side form a very conspicuous, regular series along the outer edge of the interambu-
lacral areas; in the ambulacral areas only 5—6 large spines are found scattered on the outer plates.
They are curved, and end in a little hoof. «Resembling more nearly the primary spines of Phormosoma
than the characteristic flaring trumpet-shaped spines of Asthenosoma», Agassiz says of these spines
(Chall. Ech. p. 88). As his «Phormosoma» contains so widely different forms as Ph. placenta and hopla-
cantha this statement gives no clear information; the meaning of it is that they are similar to those
of A. fenestratum; the hoof is little, short, and broad.

Agassiz says of this species that it is «allied to Asthenosoma grubi in having an extremely
thick leathery cuticle» (l.c.); according to the informations given here there is no nearer relation
between these two species. Agassiz further thinks that it is «quite possible....that this may be the
adult of Asthenosoma tesselatum» (l. c.). After having examined the type specimen of this species I
can say with certainty that this is not the case; the two species are not even so very nearly related
even if they possibly belong to the same genus. — Tetradactylous pedicellariz have not been found
in this species. The tridentate pedicellariz occur in two forms, between which there seem to be no
transitions. The large form is quite similar to the large tridentate pedicellarice in 4. fenestratum
(Pl. XIII. Fig. 5); the smaller form (Pl. XIII. Fig.6, Pl. XIV. Fig. 15) is very peculiar, the blade deep,
filled by a rich net of meshes, and with a highly irregular edge without such large sinuations as are
found in A. fenestratum and coriaceum; the widenings from the upper end of the apophysis continue
directly into the edge of the blade. When the pedicellaria is shut, the edges join completely, there is
only at the basal part a small open space. This form is a little more long-necked than usual. The
triphyllous pedicellarize are quite similar to those of 4. fenestratuwm and coriaceum; the stalk of the
pedicellarize of the common structure. Spicules and sucking disk as in 4. fenestratum; the tube feet
in three series. All the primary spines on the actinal side are broken in the only specimen known,
so that it is impossible to say anything of the form of the point; surely, however, they are not skin-
covered. — For the present it is impossible to decide whether this species is to be classed with A.
Jenestratum and coriaceum; but several things speak in favour of this supposition, and it will therefore
be most correct provisionally to refer this species to the genus Av@osoma. That the membranous
interspaces between the plates are especially large in this species speaks, of course, only in favour of
the supposition that it really belongs to this genus.

Among the specimens kept in British Museum under the name of Asthenosoma hystrix, a piece
was found (from Barbados, 137 fathoms), which is no doubt a new species, and probably also belongs

to this genus. It is very similar to Calveria hystrix, but is of a darker colour (brownish violet).

ECHINOIDEA. I.

o7)
on

Tetradactylous pedicellariz have not been observed. Of tridentate pedicellariz three kinds are found,
with no transitions between them. The first form resembles that in 4. /evestratum, but is finer and
more slender (Pl. XIII. Fig. 22); the head 1™™. The second form (PI. XIII. Fig. 10), which corresponds
to the second form in 4. fenestratum, is very large, the head 2™. The blade much involuted; the
widened part of the point rather large, coarsely sinuate in the edge. The valves only slightly curved,
and accordingly the pedicellaria when shut has a peculiar lengthened appearance. The third, smallest
form is very characteristic, with involuted edge and the outer end widened, without large curves in
the edge (but with fine serrations) (Pl. XIII. Fig. 11). Triphyllous pedicellarize of the same kind as in
the other species, only more slender (Pl. XII. Fig. 29). The stalk of the pedicellarize of the common
structure. Spicules as in 4. /enestratuwm, in two well-separated series to the very point. Well-developed
sucking disk. — For this species I propose the name of Arzeosoma Belli n. sp.

«Asthenosoma» pellucidum A. Ag. Of this species, which is easily recognised as well by its
whole habitus, as by its light spines with red bands, Agassiz says (Chall. Ech. p. 87): «Unfortunately,
the largest specimens of Asthenosoma pellucidum are so much smaller than the smallest Asthenosoma
cortaceum or the single specimen of Asthenosoma tesselatum, that I am unable so satisfy myself that
the present species (Asthenosoma pellucidum) may not be the young of Asthenosoma coriaceum. In the
only species of the group of which the Challenger collected a complete series (Phormosoma tenue)
there was little difficulty in recognising the young as belonging to the adult». We could scarcely
wish to find a more pregnant proof of the difficulty or impossibility of determining Echinids without
taking the pedicellarize into consideration. «Asthenosoma» pelluctdum is so far from being identical
with A. cortacewm or tesselatum, that it must form a separate, very well characterized genus, and with
regard to the excellent long series of «Phormosoma» tenuc, there are among the specimens referred to
this species by Agassiz at all events two different genera, but no genuine Phormosoma!

In A. pelluctdum three different kinds of pedicellarize are found, viz. globiferous, tridentate, and
triphyllous ones. The globiferous pedicellariz are of a quite unique’) form (Pl. XII. Figs. 8—10,
Pl. XIII. Figs. 20, 24, 25); they cannot be opened as other pedicellarie, the three glandular bags are
inclosed in a common skin, and open in the point, each through a separate pore. The valves are
situated between the glandular bags; they are simple rods, slightly bisected in the point, a little
hollow on the inside, and with a rather strong articular surface below. No apophysis is found, and
no muscles seem to pass between the valves, what would not be of much use neither, on account of
their being quite wrapped by the common bag of skin; they are far from reaching to the point of the
pedicellaria. The tridentate pedicellariz resemble to a high degree the pedicellaria of Ph. tenue
figured by Agassiz (Chall. Ech. Pl. XLII. Fig. 7). The construction of the blade, however, is rather
different: here only a little developed net of meshes is found, and the apophysis is not prolonged
(Pl. XIV. Fig.9), in Ph. tenwe there is a rather well developed net of meshes, and the apophysis

continues some way into the blade as a conspicuous, serrate crest. Only one form of tridentate pedi-

1) By a cursory examination one might be inclined to compare them with the «Globiferen» of Certrostephanus longt-
spinus described by Hamann (184). This, however, cannot be done, at all events not for the present; perhaps the head of
these modified globiferous pedicellarize will show a structure recalling the form described here. But of this, I think, we know
nothing. The large glands of the stalk in the globiferous pedicellarie in Centrostephanus cannot, of course, be compared
with the glands in the head of the pedicellarie of A. pedlucidune.

56 ECHINOIDEA. I.

cellariz is found, the large and small ones being upon the whole constructed in the same way. They
are finely serrate in the edge. The neck long, the stalk of the common structure. The length of the
head up to r5™™. The triphyllous pedicellarize of a very fine form, with well-developed cover-plate,
without holes (always?), and the edge beautifully serrate (Pl. XII. Fig. 14). — The spicules are in the
lower part of the tube foot almost rod-shaped, with a few holes in the middle (Pl. XI. Fig. 19); they
are placed in two series, across the longitudinal axis of the foot. In the upper part of the tube foot
they are larger fenestrated plates; the sucking disk well developed. The tube feet in three series,
beautifully trigeminate as in an “chzmus. The primary spines on the actinal side curved, with a rather
long hoof almost not thicker than the spine. Besides the characters mentioned here, there seem to be
found good characters in the structure of the test and in the apical area; with regard to these char-
acters the reader is referred to the description by Agassiz. It is evident that this species cannot
be referred to any of the other genera; especially characteristic are the globiferous pedicellariz, to
which nothing corresponding is known in other Echinothurids. It must form a separate genus, for
which I propose the name of Hapalosoma’).

Of the species that have been referred to Asthenosoma, the two species A. longispinum and
Zyamaé from Japan described by Yoshiwara (448), are still left to be mentioned. Of these nothing
can for the present be said with certainty; 4. longispimum, however, seems to be a Calverza or an
Ar@osoma.

Phormosoma tenue A. Ag. (A specimen from Challenger st. 237 examined). The tube feet are
placed very close together, forming only one almost regular series. The spicules highly developed,
irregular fenestrated plates. There is no distinct sucking disk, only some irregular, slightly branched
or unbranched continuations passing from the outermost fenestrated plates of the foot into its point.
The primary spines on the actinal side ending in a little hoof. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedi-
cellarize are found. Of tridentate pedicellarie a larger and a smaller form are found. The larger form
(of which a rather good figure is found in Chall. Ech. Pl. XLII. Fig. 7, and Pl. XLIV. Fig. 19) has a
rather rich, coarse net of meshes in the lower part of the blade, and the upper end of the apophysis
continues somewhat into the blade as a serrate crest (Pl. XII. Fig. 35). This crest is not distinctly seen
in the figure in Chall. Ech. (Pl. XLIV. Fig. 19), possibly it may not be a constant feature. The length
of the head up to 28™™, The smaller form (the head up to r™™) reminds much of those in PA. placenta,
but the contour is somewhat different, and the widenings from the upper end of the apophysis reach
to the edge of the blade (Pl. XII. Fig. 4o). The neck is long, also in the larger form, the stalk of the
common structure. The triphyllous pedicellarize have a well developed cover-plate; the edge finely
serrate. — I have not found the peculiar two-valved, bottle-shaped pedicellaria figured by Agassiz
(Chall. Ech. Pl. XLIV. Fig. 21). As it is two-valved, it may be taken to be an abnormity. It is, no
doubt, a modification of the triphyllous pedicellariz. This I also take to be the opinion of Agassiz
when he says (op. cit. p. 82), that perhaps it is only a modification of «the remarkable long-pronged

pedicellarize figured by Thomson as characteristic of the group»). — In the description of this species

1) anahis soft.
2) A few lines lower down in the same paragraph Agassiz seems to derive this form from the tridentate pedicel-

larize (see above p. 46).

ECHINOIDEA. I. 57

Agassiz (p.96) mentions the pedicellarie as «long stemmed with a small head articulating with a
second stem, from twice to three times the length of the head». This sounds very mysterious, and
the figure, to which reference is made (Pl. XVIII. a. Fig. 11), gives no clear information — the pedi-
cellaria figured there seems to be a quite common well-made one. May not this «second stem
possibly be the neck? «A second kind of pedicellaria with an inverted conical head, and a compara-
tively stouter joint articulating upon a long stem» is seen from the figure to be, in spite of this
remarkable description, a quite common triphyllous pedicellaria. Still a third kind of pedicellaria
«with a shorter articulation and a large head» is mentioned; to judge from the figure it must be the
same kind as the one with the remarkable «second stem», and they seem both of them to be the
smaller form of tridentate pedicellariz. To be sure, the similarity is not striking, and it may also be
possible that they belong to a quite different species, which has wrongly been referred to Ph. enue.
The large form of tridentate pedicellarize is not at all mentioned in the description. — The longitudinal
muscles are well-developed, organs af Stewart seem not to be found. By its spines, pedicellarize, and
the structure of the test (the actinal side only little different from the abactinal side) this species is
distinctly distinguished from the genus Phormosoma. It must form a separate genus, and must get
the name of Echinosoma proposed by Pomel (324) for this species and Ph. wranus, although this name
is not especially significant for these species the test of which is so very soft and thin, and which are
only provided with uncommonly few spines.

Of the Echinothurids referred by Agassiz to Ph. tenue I have examined a specimen from
Chall. st.272. It proved to belong to a quite different genus together with Pz. Asterias A. Ag., under
which species it will be more nearly mentioned. On the label was found a point of interrogation, but
of this doubt nothing is said in the text, and st. 272 is given without any reservation as a locality
of Ph. tenue.

The above mentioned specimen from Chall. st. 184, which is by Agassiz referred to «Astheno-
soma» gracilis, is no doubt very nearly allied to Echinosoma tenwe. Of the large form of pedicellarice
I have, unfortunately, only seen one broken specimen, by which it was not to be decided with certainty
whether the apophysis continues into the blade as a crest. The smaller form of pedicellarize is very
similar to those of Ech. tenwe; the triphyllous pedicellarie are a little narrower than in this species,
but agree with it in the development of the cover-plate. Also the spicules are a little narrower than

in Ech, tenwe; no sucking disk; the tube feet in one almost regular series. There can scarcely be

any doubt that it is a species of the genus Echinosoma, and, moreover, a new species. As I can give
no sufficient description of it, I shall give no name to it.

«Phormosoma» uranus Wyv. Thomson is, no doubt, most nearly allied to Ach. tenwe, as also
observed by Agassiz (Chall. Ech. p. 103). Only 3—4 large primary spines are found in each side of
the ambulacral and interambulacral areas on the actinal side at the ambitus, otherwise only scattered
small spines. All the primary spines are broken on the type specimen of Wyv. Thomson, but no

doubt they are provided with a little hoof in the point as in Ech. ¢enwe. The tube feet on the actinal

side are arranged almost in one series Fal only a few outside of it. Of the tridentate pedicellarie

I have only found the smaller form (Pl. XII. Fig. 36). (The head up to 1™™); they resemble very

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 8

58 ECHINOIDEA. I.

much those of Ech. ¢enue, and almost still more those of Pr. placenta. The widenings from the
upper end of the apophysis reach most frequently, to be sure, to the edge of the blade, but they end
rather often quite down at the side as in P%. placenta. In the triphyllous pedicellarize (Pl. XII. Fig. 17)
the cover-plate is well developed, the edge finely serrate. There can scarcely be any doubt that also
this species will have to be referred to the genus Lchinosoma.

In the description of «Phormosoma» uranus (loc. cit.) Agassiz uses the expression «the only
specimen collected», but nevertheless puts down for it two different localities, st.6 and st. 78. This
riddle I am able to solve. In British Museum a quite small Echinothurid is found from Chall. st. 78,
determined by Agassiz as Ph. wranus?? On this basis st. 78 is named without any reservation as a
locality of «Ph.» wranus (comp. Calverta gracilis and Echinosoma tenue). With regard to this specimen,
it is otherwise very badly preserved, and not a single pedicellaria is kept. It is quite indeterminable,
and consequently it cannot be considered to be correct to figure details of this specimen under the
name of Phormosoma uranus (without any interrogation), as has been done by Agassiz (Chall. Ech.
Pl. XVIII. c Fig. 12).

The description of «P/.» wranus given here does not at all agree with the excellent description
given by Koehler (229). The incongruity arises from the fact that the species described by Koehler
is no Ph. uranus at all. As I have examined the type specimen of Wyv. Thomson and also a
specimen of the species Koehler has had before him, I am able to express myself with absolute
certainty.

In the preliminary report of the Echinids from «Blake» (6) Agassiz establishes a new species
under the name of Phormosoma Petersi, and describes it as «a species with an extremely thin test,
and one which, when alive, is greatly swollen, assuming a nearly globular outline. It is of a brilliant
light claret color. As in PA. wranus, there is but little difference between the spines of the actinal
and abactinal surfaces. The coronal plates of this species are more numerous than in any other species
of the genus» (p. 76. op. cit.). In the final report of the «Blake»-Echinids (9) Agassiz states Ph.
Petersu to be synonymous with Pk. uranus. Although the form he called PA. Peters, «differed very
strikingly» from the specimen of Wyv. Thomson, he thinks now, after having got a specimen from
the Farde-Channel of a size between the type specimen of Ph. wranus and the «Blake»-specimens of
Ph. Petersi, that «the differences which had been noticed between them were merely due to age, and
that in this species the great development of the large primary tubercles of the actinal surface takes
place at a late period of growth».

Koehler mentions a specimen of this «PA. wranus», which he has got from the Smithsonian
Institution (from «Albatross»), and by which he has determined his specimens as Ph. uranus. Our
museum has also from Smithsonian Institution received a specimen of this «Ph. wranus», which is
identical with the form more nearly described by Koehler. Now the question is whether this form
is really identical with the original PZ. Petersii of Agassiz. The expression above quoted from the
first note of Ph. Petersii: «there is but little difference between the spines of the actinal and abactinal
surfaces» does in no way agree with the species of Koehler, in which the spines of the actinal side
have a large, conspicuous hoof. It is possible, however, that they may have been broken in the speci-

mens of Agassiz, and in this case there is really not much difference to be seen between the spines

*CHINOIDEA. I. c
EC Ava 59

of the actinal side and those of the abactinal side. (Our specimen is exactly in this condition). It
does not appear from the habitus figures given by Agassiz and Koehler that it is the same species
— but as Agassiz only figures the abactinal side, Koehler only the actinal one, the figures do not
disprove the identity either. On the other hand, the detail-figures seem to agree, especially with
regard to the arrangement of the pores which is rather characteristic. I therefore think it very prob-
able that the species of Koehler is really identical with the Ps. Petersit of Agassiz, which latter is
accordingly in no way synonymous with » PA» wranws Wyv. Thomson.

This species is distinguished hy the following characters. The tube feet are placed on the
actinai side in one almost regular series, on the abactinal side they are placed in three series very
close together. The spicules are irregular fenestrated plates that do not seem to be arranged in longi-
tudinal series; no sucking disk. The primary spines on the actinal side curved, with a large hoof.
Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz are found. Of tridentate pedicellarize only one form is
found, with involuted edge, and the outer part widened in a spoon-like way, with straight and finely
serrate edge (Pl. XIII. Figs. 8, 13). It is found of different sizes, up to 1™™ (the length of the head).
The neck rather long, the stalk as usual. (A figure of the whole pedicellaria is given by Koehler
(op. cit. Pl. IX. Fig. 49)). The triphyllous pedicellarize with well developed cover-plate with many small
holes; the edge finely serrate (Pl. XII. Fig. 42). The organs of Stewart well developed. — It is evident
that this species cannot be referred to any of the preceding genera; it must form a new genus, for
which I propose the name of Hygrosoma’), and its name will then be ygrosoma Petersii (A. Ag.).

«Phormosoma» hoplacantha WWyv. Thomson seems to be very nearly allied to this species. Its
whole exterior is quite like it; the spines have a similar large, white hoof, and the primary spines
are arranged in the same way as in 4. Petersiz; also the tube feet are arranged quite as in the latter
species. Of pedicellarize only a large tridentate form is known, figured by Agassiz (Chall. Ech.
Pl. XLII. Fig. 1, and Pl. XLIV. Fig. 29). It seems to be very similar to the above described form in
Hi. Peterstt. Although I have not examined the pedicellariz of this species, I do not doubt that it
belongs to the same genus as Aygrosoma Petersii — the difficulty is rather to state any difference
between the two species. To judge by the figures of Agassiz, the pedicellarie, however, seem to
differ somewhat from those of Petersiz, so that presumably specific characters will be found in
these structures. As HZ. hoplacantha has only been taken in the Pacific (at Australia, Japan, and Juan
Fernandez), and as 77. Petersii is only known from the Atlantic, there can scarcely be any doubt that
they form two well distinguished species.

No doubt «Phormosoma» luculentum A. Ag. is nearly allied to these two species. As in these
the spines of the actinal side end in a large, white hoof. The tube feet are arranged in the same
way; the spicules are rather large, irregular fenestrated plates, somewhat indistinctly arranged in two
series. A rather well developed sucking disk is found. The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIII. Fig. 14)
are very much similar to those of Aygrosoma Petersii; the triphyllous ones (Pl. XII. Fig. 20) are of a
somewhat different form, but otherwise with large cover-plate and serrate edge as in /. Petersi. But
besides these forms still a very peculiar kind of pedicellarize is found (Pl. XII. Fig. 16), which is, no

doubt, a modified form of tridentate pedicellaria. The valves are very broad, constricted in the middle.

") bypos — elastic.

60 ECHINOIDEA. I.

The blade is filled by an exceedingly dense and complicated net of meshes. In the figures of
Agassiz (Pl. XLIV. Figs. 25—26, Chall. Ech.) this net of meshes is not seen, but otherwise these
figures give a good representation of the single valve. The length of the head 15™", the neck very
short, the stalk thicker and stronger than usual, with a constriction above. They seem only to be
found on the actinal side. Agassiz further figures (Pl. XLIV. Fig. 27) a single valve of a «small
short-headed, shortstemmed pedicellaria», which seems to be an ophicephalous one. This form I have
not found in the specimen I examined in British Museum (Chall. st. 200); but as, at the time, I had
not noticed the mentioned figure, I have not, of course, made any special search for it, and so I dare
say nothing of it. If this species should thus prove to be possessed of two kinds of pedicellariz, to
which nothing corresponding is found in any other known Echinothurid, there might be some reason
to establish a separate genus for it. For the present, however, I think it most correct to refer it to
the genus Hygrosoma, as in so many important structures it agrees exactly with the other species
referred to this genus.

The last of the Echinothurids described from «Challenger», Phormosoma asterias, differs to a
high degree from all the others; to be sure, its peculiarities do not appear from the description of the
species by Agassiz (Chall. Ech. p. 104), but his figures give more information, and the examination of
the type specimen in British Museum revealed still more interesting features. — The ambulacral areas
show the quite unique feature that the small secondary ambulacral plates are wanting; there is only
one tube foot for each ambulacral plate. Thus only a single series of tube feet is found, and the
distance between the feet is rather large. This highly interesting feature is seen very well on the
figures of Agassiz (Pl. XII. a. Figs. 8, 9); in the description he only says that «the course of the
poriferous zone is quite sporadic». (It is a matter of course that this very interesting feature ought
to be examined exactly, as it is possible that traces may be found of the secondary ambulacral plates
and their tube feet.) The spicules are lengthened, narrow, with few or no holes (comp. Pl. XI. Fig. 18);
they are arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis of the foot, in 2—3 well separated series; in the
outer part of the foot they may join completely. No sucking disk is found. — The spines are of a
quite peculiar structure, that is to say they are flat and broad towards the point (Pl. XIV. Fig. 29).
I can give no information whether a hoof is found on the point of these spines or on other spines
of common form, as I have not made sufficient notes on this fact. The pedicellarie are not less
peculiar. The blade of the tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XIII. Fig.g) is rather flat, with a more or less
well developed, perforated cover-plate below reminding of that in the triphyllous pedicellariz. The
point is hastately cut off, a little widened, with finely dentate outer edge; the apophysis and the lateral
edges more or less thorny. In the triphyllous pedicellarize the cover-plate is very slightly developed,
highly perforated (Pl. XII. Fig. 12). The edge shows only very slight indications of teeth, so that they
are only to be seen under especially high magnifying powers. The stalk of the pedicellarize is quite
different from that of all other Echinothurids, as it consists of long, thin calcareous threads, almost
without any connection except in the upper and lower end of the stalk — as in an Echinus, It is
evident that this species cannot be referred to any of the other genera; it must form a separate genus,
for which I propose the name of Kamptosoma’).

1) xdurtw — bend.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 61

To this genus belongs further one specimen (or more?) from Chall. st.272 determined by
Agassiz as Phormosoma tenue? — The spicules (Pl. XI. Fig. 18) are as in A. astertas and arranged in
the same way; no sucking disk. I can give no information of the fact whether the spines are as in
K. astertas, as 1 have no notice of this feature. The pedicellarize are very similar to those of K. asterias,
but here moreover a larger form of tridentate pedicellariz is found (Pl. XIII. Figs. 15, 21), which I
have not seen in the type specimen of A. astertas. As, however, the pedicellarize agree otherwise so
exactly, it may be supposed that this form will also be found in A. asterias. This larger form of
pedicellarize is chiefly constructed as the smaller one; the cover-plate has only a few holes in the
median line, or is quite open the edges not joining completely. The point is a little widened, broadly
hastate, with exceedingly finely serrate edge; (as in the triphyllous pedicellarize the serrations are only
to be seen under very high magnifying powers); the holes in the blade are beautifully arranged in
curved series. They are very long-necked; the head up to o8™™; the stalk is of the structure char-
acteristic of the genus Kamptosoma. The smaller form of tridentate pedicellarize resemble to a high
degree those of A. asterzas the only difference being that the apophysis and edges have no thorns.
The triphyllous pedicellariz are somewhat shorter and more arched than those of A. as¢erias, but they
have the same peculiar cover-plate, and the serrations of the edge are likewise exceedingly slight. —
There can be no doubt that this species also belongs to the genus Aamptosoma,; but it may be
doubtful whether it is a separate species, or identical with A. asterias. The small differences in the
pedicellariz are suggestive of its being a distinct species; but this question cannot be decided with
certainty, till a direct comparison of the two specimens has been made.

Now we have only left two of the species referred to Phormosoma, viz. Ph. panamense A. Ag.,
and Ph. hispidum A.Ag. As to the former it has been supposed above that it may be a genuine
Phormosoma, of the latter nothing at all can be said. Both species have only been preliminarily and
very incompletely described.

The genus Sferosoma established by Koehler (228, 229) is especially characteristic by the
peculiar construction of the ambulacral areas on the actinal side. The secondary ambulacral plates
are of about the same size as the primary ones; the primary ambulacral plate is divided into an outer
part, in which the pore is found, and an inner part. Thus on the actinal side the ambulacral area
consists of 8 series of plates. The tube feet are placed in three widely separated series. The spicules
are large fenestrated plates, not arranged in series; there is a well developed sucking disk (Pl. XIV.
Fig. 4). Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellarie are found. The tridentate ones (Pl. XIV. Figs. 2,
6, 33) remind somewhat of those in Ph. placenta, especially the small forms are only with difficulty to
be distinguished from those; the widenings from the upper end of the apophysis do not reach to the
edge of the blade. There is a rather coarse net of meshes in the bottom of the blade, slightly devel-
oped in the small forms, more developed in the larger ones, and in these latter it is set with thorns
(Pl. XIII. Fig. 12.) The length of the head up to 2™™, the neck rather short in the large ones; the stalk
of the common structure. In the triphyllous pedicellariz the cover-plate is rather slightly developed,
with numerous small holes. The edge finely serrate. The primary spines on the actinal side curved,
with a large, white hoof.

Besides the species of Koehler, S%. Grimaldi, a species established by Déderlein (118), SP.

62 ECHINOIDEA. I.

bisertatum, has been referred to this especially well characterized genus; but it has not hithertho been
more thoroughly described, so that for the present nothing can be said of this species.

One more genus will have to be established for a large Echinothurid obtained by the «Ingolf»-
Expedition. The tube feet form one irregular series on the actinal side; the spicules irregular fene-
strated plates not arranged in series; no sucking disk. The primary spines on the actinal side curved,
with large hoof. Three kinds of pedicellariz are found: tridentate, ophicephalous, and triphyllous
pedicellariz. The tridentate ones occur in two forms; in the larger form (length of the head up to
3°5™™) the blade is filled by a coarse, very thorny net of meshes (PI. XII. Fig. 41). The edges are not
involuted; the outer part of the blade somewhat widened. The neck very short, the stalk of the
common structure. The smaller form resembles those in P. placenta, but the widenings from the
upper end of the apophysis reach to the edge of the blade. The ophicephalous pedicellariz (Pl. XIV.
Figs. 19, 23, 25) are very peculiar, the upper end of the valve being widened in a wing-shaped way,
while the middle part is very narrow. The length of the head ca. o5™. The neck is quite short,
contrary to the ophicephalous pedicellariz of the Kchinids, and the stalk is a thick, perforated tube.
— As ophicephalous pedicellariz, as far as hitherto known, are not found in other Echinothurids
(perhaps they are found, however, in ygrosoma luculentum (see above p. 59—60), but then they have
quite another form) they yield an excellent character for this genus. In the triphyllous pedicellariz
the cover-plate is rather slightly developed, richly perforated (P]. XII. Fig. 31). — For this genus I pro-
pose the name of Tromikosoma_’).

According to these researches the system of the Echinothurids gets the following appearance:

Phormosoma Wyv. Thomson (emend.).

The primary spines on the actinal side straight, club-shaped, inclosed by a thick bag of skin;
marked difference between the actinal and the abactinal sides. The areoles of the actinal side very
large. The tube feet are arranged in a single series on the actinal side. The spicules large fenestrated
plates; no sucking disk. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz. The tridentate ones are simply
leaf-shaped, with little developed net of meshes. The widenings from the upper end of the apophysis
do not reach to the edge of the blade. The stalk of the pedicellarize irregularly perforated.

rigidum A, Ag.

Species: Ph. placenta Wyv. Thomson, bursarium A. Ag.,
Distribution: Northern part of the Atlantic, Japan, the Philippines, New-Zealand. — Archiben-

thal forms.

Echinosoma Pomel (emend.).

The primary spines on the actinal side curved, with a little hoof at the point; the actinal and
the abactinal sides look almost quite alike, only a few, large spines being found near the ambitus. The
areoles large. The tube feet are placed in one almost regular series on the actinal side; the spicules
large fenestrated plates, no sucking disk. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz. Of tridentate
pedicellarize two forms are (always?) found, a large one, flat, with a rich net of meshes, and with the

upper end of the apophysis continuing some way into the blade as a serrate crest, and a smaller one,

1) toopexds — quivering.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 63

simply leaf-shaped, with a little developed net of meshes. The stalk of the pedicellariz irregularly
perforated.
Species: Lch. tenue (A. Ag.), wranus (Wyv. Thomson).

Distribution: The Pacific, the northern Atlantic. — Abyssal forms.

Asthenosoma Grube (emend.).

Synonym: Cyanosoma Sarasin.

The primary spines on the actinal side curved, with a rather long, narrow hoof; rather great
difference between the abactinal and the actinal sides, on account of the numerous primary spines
covering the whole actinal side; the areoles are almost of equal size on both sides. The spines on the
abactinal side inclosed by a thick, annularly constricted bag of skin. The tube feet form three dense
series; the spicules small branched bodies, arranged in longitudinal series. Sucking disk well devel-
oped. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellarie. The tridentate ones occur in three distinct forms.
The largest form has a long, narrow blade, widened in the point where it is coarsely serrate (not
observed in all the species); the second form has a short, broad, and flat blade filled by a rich net of
meshes and with coarsely sinuate edge. The third form is simply leaf-shaped, with the apophysis con-
tinued to the middle of the blade, or quite to the point as a sharp, serrate crest. The stalk irregularly
perforated.

Species: Asth. vartum Grube, Graber A. Ag. wrens Sarasin, heteractes Bedford.

Distribution: Ceylon, the East-Indian Archipelago. — Littoral forms.

Calveria Wyv. Thomson (emend.).

The primary spines on the actinal side curved, ending in a little hoof; only a slight difference
between the actinal and the abactinal sides. The areoles rather small. The primary spines form a
rather conspicuous series along the outer margin of the interambulacral areas, especially towards the
ambitus on the actinal side. The tube feet in three dense series; the spicules in the outer part of the
tube foot larger fenestrated plates, in the lower part smaller and arranged in longitudinal series.
Sucking disk developed. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellarie. In the large form of tridentate
pedicellarize the blade is much involuted, only at the point a little widened, and the edge of this
widened part is irregularly serrate. The smaller tridentate pedicellaric chiefly of the same form, only
the widened part of the blade comparatively larger, the involuted part smaller. The stalk irregularly
perforated.

Species: C. hystrix Wyv. Thomson, graczlis (A. Agass.).

Distribution: The northern Atlantic, the Philippines. — Archibenthal forms.

Arzosoma n. g.

The primary spines on the actinal side curved, ending in a little hoof; only a slight difference
between the actinal and the abactinal sides; the areoles rather small. The primary spines form a
rather conspicuous series along the outer margin of the interambulacral areas, especially on the actinal
side towards the ambitus. The tube feet in three dense series. The spicules larger fenestrated plates,
in the lower part of the tube foot smaller, sometimes irregular needles, more or less distinctly arranged

in longitudinal series. Sucking disk well developed. Besides the commonly occurring tridentate and

64 ECHINOIDEA. I.

triphyllous pedicellariz also tetradactylous pedicellariz are found. The tridentate ones occur in 2—3
different forms. In one form the blade is highly involuted, only the point is widened, deeply indented
in the edge. The second form has a shorter involuted part, and a comparatively larger widened point,
with coarsely sinuate edge; in the smaller specimens of this form the edge of the widened part may
be quite straight. (In one species (4. ¢esselatum) instead of this form a tridentate pedicellaria is found,
in which the edge of the blade is not at all involuted, and the blade is filled by a coarse net of
meshes; in another species (4. Bed/z) only (?) very large specimens are found of the second form, and here
occurs moreover a third, smaller form with involuted edge and widened point the edges of which are
not sinuate. — The position of these two species is somewhat uncertain). The stalk of the pedicellariz
irregularly perforated.

Species: A. fenestratum (Wyv. Thoms.), cortaceum (A. Ag.), tesselatum (A. Ag.) (?), Belli n. sp. (?).

Distribution: The northern Atlantic, the Viti Islands, the Philippines. — Sublittoral-archiben-

thal forms.
Hapalosoma n. g.

The primary spines on the actinal side curved, with a rather long, thin hoof; they form a
regular, conspicuous series along the outer margins of the interambulacral areas, which series continues
some way up on the abactinal side. The areoles not very large; no conspicuous difference between
the actinal and the abactinal sides. The tube feet in three series — almost as in an Lchinus. The
spicules almost rod-shaped, above somewhat larger fenestrated plates, arranged in two series; the
sucking disk well developed. Three kinds of pedicellariz: globiferous, tridentate, and triphyilous ones.
In the globiferous ones the glandular bags are quite wrapped in a common skin; they open in the
point of the head each through a separate little pore. The valves, which are situated between the
glandular bags, reach only half-way to the point. The tridentate pedicellarize are simply leaf-shaped,

with an only slightly developed net of meshes; only this form is found. The stalk of the common

structure.
Species: 7. pellucidum (A. Ag).
Distribution: The Philippines, New Guinea. — Sublittoral form.

Hygrosoma n. g.

The primary spines on the actinal side curved, with a large, white hoof; they are scattered
near the ambitus; the areoles large; the difference between the actinal and the abactinal sides rather
great. The tube feet are arranged in one almost regular series on the actinal side. The spicules
large fenestrated plates, no sucking disk. Only tridentate and triphyllous pediceilarie. The tridentate
ones occur only in one form, highly involuted; the point is widened in a spoon-like manner, and its
edge is straight. The stalk of the pedicellarie of the common structure. In one species, AZ. lucu-
lentum, another kind of tridentate pedicellarize is found, with very thick and broad blades, almost as
ophicephalous pedicellarize; but the species cannot with certainty be referred here.

Species: H7. Petersit (A. Agass.), hoplacantha (Wyv. Thoms.), decelentim (A. Ag.) (?).

Distribution: The northern Atlantic, the Pacific. — Sublittoral-archibenthal forms.

Tromikosoma n. ¢.

The primary spines on the actinal side curved, with a large hoof, they are only few and

ECHINOIDEA. I. 65

scattered, and form no regular series; the areoles of a middle size; no great difference between the
actinal and the abactinal sides. The spicules irregular fenestrated plates, not in series; the tube feet
in one irregular series on the actinal side; no sucking disk. Three kinds of pedicellarize: ophice-
phalous, tridentate, and triphyllous ones. The ophicephalous ones with the valves highly constricted
in the middle, short neck, and tube-formed stalk. The tridentate ones occur in two forms, a larger
one with leaf-shaped point, filled by a coarse, thorny net of meshes, not involuted; and a smaller one,
simply leaf-shaped, with the widenings of the apophysis ending at the very edge of the blade. The
stalk of the tridentate and the triphyllous pedicellariz of the common structure.
Species: Z. AKoehleri n. sp.

Distribution: The Davis Strait. — Abyssal form.

Sperosoma Koehler.

The primary spines on the actinal side curved, with a large white hoof; they occur scattered;
the areoles large. Rather great difference between the actinal and the abactinal sides. The secondary
ambulacral plates on the actinal side of the same size as the primary ones; the ambulacral areas con-
sist on the actinal side of 8 series of plates. The tube feet on the actinal side in three widely
separated series. The spicules large, fenestrated plates, not arranged in series; sucking disk well
developed. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz. The tridentate ones are simply leaf-shaped;
the widenings from the upper end of the apophysis do not reach to the edge of the blade; in the large
ones the blade is filled by a coarse, thorny net of meshes. ‘The stalk of the common structure.

Species: SA. Grimaldi Koehler, beseriatum Déderlein.

Distribution: The northern Atlantic, the Indian Ocean. — Archibenthal forms.

Kamptosoma n. g.

The spines (at all events some of them) flat and widened towards the point; hoof (?); no great
difference between the actinal and the abactinal sides. Secondary ambulacral plates seem to be wanting.
The tube feet form a single series. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellarize; in the tridentate ones
the blade is flat with more or less developed cover-plate; a larger and a smaller form are found, only
little different. In the triphyllous pedicellariz the cover-plate is uncommonly slightly developed. The
stalk consists of long threads almost only united at the ends.

Species: A. asterias (A. Agass.).

Distribution: The Pacific. — Abyssal form.

Incerte sedis:
Phormosoma panamense A. Ag.
— hispidum A. Ag.
Asthenosoma longispinum Yoshiwara.

— Lyamai Yoshiwara.

As has been done above in the Cidarids I shall also here expressly observe that I do not
regard the generic diagnoses given here as complete. As well the structure of the test as the inner

anatomy stands in need of an exact examination in several of the genera. I must, however, regard

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 9

66 ECHINOIDEA. I.

all the genera established here as good ones, and also the limitation of the old genera Phormosoma
and Asthenosoma is no doubt correct. Only the genera Arv@osoma and Hygrosoma are perhaps still
taken in too wide a sense, in as far as the species 4. fesselatum and Belli, as also H. luculentum
ought perhaps to be separated as particular genera; at all events, however, they are most nearly allied
to the genera to which they are here referred.

In stead of the former confusion of species and the two genera that were not to be kept
distinct, we have got a number of definitely characterized and easily recognisable genera — a result
that has been obtained especially by a careful examination of the pedicellariz. Thus it proves here
as in the Cidarids to be a fact that the spines and the structure of the test are in no way a sufficient
basis for the classification. Otherwise the spines play a prominent part in the classification of the
Echinothurids, and by means of these alone a far better classification might have been obtained than
the one expressed in the old «genera» Phormosoma and Asthenosoma.

For the present it must be left undecided whether there may be any question of a grouping
of the genera into subfamilies. There is, however, no doubt that the genera Phormosoma and Kamp-

tosoma are rather distantly allied to the other genera.

5. Phormosoma placenta Wyy. Thomson.

Pl. IV, Figs. 1—2. Pl. XI, Figs. 7, 10, 25. Pl. XII, Figs. 2—3, 7, II, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 37, 39. PL XIII, Fig. 7.

Synonym: Phormosoma Sigsbet Agassiz.

Principal literature: Wy ville Thomson: «Porcupine»-Echinoidea (395). p. 732. Pl. LXII—LXII.
— A. Agassiz: 6. p.75. «Blake-Echini» (9) p. 30. Pl. XII, XV. Fig. 3—19. — E.A.Verrill: 418. p. 139.
— W.E. Hoyle: Rev. List of Brit. Ech. (202). p. 406. — F. Jeffr. Bell: 69. p. 436—38. Catalogue of
Brit. Ech. (73). p. 144.

This species has been so carefully described by Wyv. Thomson and Agassiz, that there is
no reason to give here again a complete description of it. Only a few structures need still a more
exact description, viz. the spines, the tube feet, and the pedicellaria; some remarks must also be made
with regard to the development and transformation of the apical area, as also with regard to the inner
structure.

Of the spines on the actinal side of this species Bell (Catal. p. 144) says: «from what is known

. it is probable, that they are rather long and have a stout calcareous cap». This is wrong. Wyv.
Thomson, to be sure, says (l.c.) that two kinds of spines are found, but what he describes and figures
is only larger and smaller spines of the kind found on the abactinal side; the large spines on the
actinal side have been broken in his specimens. Agassiz, in the description of P%. placenta («Blake»-
KEchini), says nothing of the spines of the actinal side, but from his fig. 8. Pl. XII it is seen that they
are club-shaped, and in the explanation of the figures they are called «clubshaped». In the diagnosis
of Ph. Sigsbet, which, according to Agassiz himself, is synonymous with Ph. placenta, it is said:
«primary radioles on the actinal surface resembling those of PA. bwrsaria», and of these latter he says
(Chall. Ech. p. 100): «on the actinal surface the primary spines are not tipped with a solid hoof, but

all end in a fleshy bag». — Thus it may be seen, by comparing the several statements, to be sub-

ECHINOIDEA. I. 67

stantiated in an indirect manner in the literature that the primary spines on the actinal side are
inclosed in a thick bag of skin, and it may be seen rather easier on the animals themselves when
they are fairly well preserved. — These bags of skin may possiby contain poison apparatus; at all
events the living Phormosomes are said to sting when touched, and there seems to be no poison bags
on the spines of the abactinal side.

These skin-covered spines are of a more complicated structure than the spines of the abactinal
side; only at the base it may still be seen that they have originally been tubular as the other spines.
They end in a broad serrate point (Pl. XII. Fig.11). In transverse sections it is seen that they are
tubular in the lower part with projecting, hollowed ridges (Pl. XI. Fig.7b); towards the point these
ridges become much less conspicuous and quite irregular. At the same time the cavity is filled by
an irregular net of meshes of fine calcareous threads running parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
tube (Pl. XI. Fig. 10). The spines of the abactinal side, as is seen from the excellent figure by Wyv.
Thomson (Pl. LXII. 3), are hollow tubes, very regularly perforated, and ending in a long, fine point.
Most frequently, however, the thorns are both fewer and more feeble than in this figure. Transverse
sections show that here no projecting longitudinal ridges are found (PI. XI. Fig.7 a). The spines on
the peristome are covered in their whole length by a thick skin, but they have no bag-shaped
widening in the point. The spines themselves are constructed as the primary spines of the actinal
side, the only difference being that they are not widened at the point (Pl. XII. Fig. ro).

The expression of «marginal fasciole», used by Agassiz of the close-sitting small spines at
the ambitus («Blake»-Echini. p. 34) is to be avoided, at all events for the present. Agassiz, to be sure,
thinks that they «take(s) almost the prominence of a fasciole, and are (is) interesting as showing how
such a structure may exist in a rudimentary form in the Desmosticha» (Chall. Ech. p.98). I do not
think that it recalls to any striking degree the fascioles of the Spatangids, and at all events we have
for the present no safety that they are homologous formations. The expression of «marginal fringe»
used by Wyv. Thomson is therefore to be preferred, as it is quite without morphological pretensions.

Wyv. Thomson (op.cit. p. 735) states that the tube feet «are provided with a sucker with a
well-developed calcareous rosette of four or five pieces». This sucker I have not been able to find;
according to my examinations all the tube feet, as well actinal as abactinal, end in a point, without
sucking disk. The spicules, which are, as stated by Wyv. Thomson, irregular, larger or smaller
fenestrated plates, are commonly arranged in 4 longitudinal series. This is especially distinct in the
lower part of the tube foot; towards the point the plates become larger and arcuate, and at last they
surround the foot as a mail. There is no great difference between the spicules of the tube feet of the
actinal and the abactinal sides; they are only more slightly developed in the latter (Pl. XI. Fig. 25).

In young specimens of Pz. placenta the peculiar feature is found in the tube feet of the abac-
tinal side that only the uppermost one of the three tube feet that correspond to each ambulacral plate,
is well developed, while the other two are quite rudimentary. The same fact may also be found in
large specimens, and it may at all events most frequently be seen that the uppermost one of each set
of three tube feet (the one belonging to the inner one of the two small secondary ambulacral plates)

is more developed than the others. In these rudimentary tube feet no spicules are developed; neither

9

68 ECHINOIDEA. I.

are any spicules found in the skin on the outside of the plates (which may easily be prepared off) or
in the bag of skin round the spines of the actinal side.

The pedicellariz. The tridentate pedicellariee occur only in one form, with simply leaf-shaped
valves. The size is very different, from quite small ones to such where the head has a length of 2™™.
The form of the valves is rather varying, sometimes short, broad, and flat, almost without any net of
meshes, sometimes long, narrow, and deep, or long and broad, with a rather well developed net of
meshes at the bottom. On Pl. XII. Figs. 2, 3, 7, 26, 37, 39 some forms are given; all transitions between
them are found; but narrow and broad forms do not seem to occur in the same individual, as in PA.
bursarium. The upper end of the apophysis is widened, but these widenings do not reach to the edge
of the blade, they cease about midway on the side. Also the net of meshes at the bottom of the blade
is an immediate continuation of the upper end of the apophysis; it is always smooth. The sides of
the blade are most frequently a little bent outward, especially on the narrow forms. The edge is
finely serrate, which is only to be seen under higher magnifying powers. The tridentate pedicellaria
figured on Pl. XIII. Fig. 7, is the long, narrow form. The neck is rather long, the stalk is thin, irre-
gularly perforated.

In some specimens from st. 40 the tridentate pedicellariz are especially long and narrow (the
pedicellaria figured on PI. XIII. Fig.7 is one of these), so that we might be inclined to regard these
as a separate species or variety. As there seems, however, to be no other characters, — with the
exception that the tube feet of the actinal side are more rudimentary than usual — and as the form
of the pedicellaria may be rather varying, there can scarcely be any question of regarding these speci-
mens otherwise than as good Ph. placenta.

The triphyllous pedicellarie have been excellently figured by Wy v. Thomson (Pl. LXII. Fig. 6),
so I only figure one valve seen from the inside (Pl. XI. Fig. 21). The cover-plate is here very slightly
developed, but in this feature some variation is found. The outer edge is finely serrate.

Sometimes two-valved pedicellarizee are found, especially tridentate ones, more rarely triphyllous
ones. They are constructed as the normal three-valved pedicellarie, and have an apophysis as these,
only more slightly developed. It is rather interesting to compare these pedicellarie with the normally
two-valved ones in Porocidaris; in the latter the apophysis is quite wanting. I have found a few
instances of a tridentate pedicellaria, in which the edge of the blade was a little involuted for a short
space below, so that it reminded of the small tridentate pedicellarize in Ar@osoma fenestratum.

The spheeridiz (Pl. XII. Figs. 23, 25) are commonly almost globular, but show too great varia-
tion to be reliable specific characters. As observed by Agassiz they are placed in a series along the
tube feet from the mouth far up on the abactinal side.

According to Bell (69. p. 438) the longitudinal muscles are «altogether absent from Pormo-
soma». I cannot agree with Bell in this statement; they are also found in Ph. placenta, and are of
the common form, but they are fine and break easily, so that the preparation must be made with
great caution, in order to get a distinct view of them. I think it only little probable that any greater
individual variation with regard to the development of the longitudinal muscles should be found in
Ph. placenta, so that they might even sometimes be quite wanting. The organs of Stewart, as shown

by Beli (op. cit.), are very little developed.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 69

Agassiz («Blake»-Echini. Pl. XV) has figured several stages of development of this species.
As among the material of Ph. placenta collected by the «Ingolf» several small specimens are found,
especially from st. 25 (the Davis Strait), I have been able to follow the development of the apical area,
and have found that the description of this development given by Agassiz does not agree very well
with Hat is shown by the specimens before me. Whether this is due to the fact that the figures
given by Agassiz are inaccurately drawn, or perhaps a confounding with another species has taken
place, I shall not try to decide. (The possibility of the West-Indian specimens of Ph. placenta being a
special local form, seems to be excluded: some specimens from the Gulf of Mexico, which our museum
has received from the Smithsonian Institution, agree exactly with those taken in the Davis Strait.)
I shall only figure a couple of stages of the development of the apical area in the specimens in hand.

On PI.1V. Fig.2 the apical area of a specimen of a diameter of 7™™ is figured. Agassiz on
Pl. XV. Fig. 3 figures the apical area of a specimen of a diameter of 8™™. The difference between these
two figures is rather conspicuous. In the specimen figured here the ocular plates have a peculiar,
«spade»-like form, and the genital plates almost join inside of them, so that the ocular plates only
just touch the anal area; the madreporite may already be distinguished. In the figure of Agassiz
the form of the ocular and the genital plates is quite different, and the ocular plates reach far inside
of the genital plates. On Pl.IV. Fig. 1 the apical area of a specimen of a diameter of 37™™ is figured.
The development of small plates, partly at the cost of the genital and ocular plates, is here already
rather advanced, the ocular plates, however, having still essentially kept the form characteristic of the
younger stages. (In the adult animal this form is no more to be recognized.) Even if all possible
transitional stages between the two figured here were not found, there could scarcely be any doubt
that they are developmental stages of the same species. The peculiar small, oblong plates in the skin
of the region round the anal opening, begin already to appear in specimens of a diameter of 15".
(They have here been drawn a little too regular.) Agassiz (Pl. XV. Figs.g and 11) figures the apical
area of specimens of a respective diameter of 287" and 41™™. The resemblance to the figures given
here is not striking; but the figures are rather indistinct, so that it is difficult to compare the details
of the two sets of figures. Further Agassiz (Pl. XV. Fig.5) figures the apical area of a Ph. placenta
of a diameter of 17™™; this figure agrees as badly with a specimen of 17™ now before me, as does
the figure 3 of Agassiz with the apical area of a specimen of 7™™ figured here. — A comparison of
these two figures in Agassiz (Figs.3 and 5) conveys the direct impression that they do not belong
to one species. But whatever the case may be with regard to these figures, it is a sure fact that the
specimens before me are really Phormosoma placenta. It is still to be observed that the figures given
here have been drawn from dried specimens; in specimens in spirit it is generally impossible to see
the limits between the plates distinctly.

A large material of this species has been obtained by the «Ingolf»-Expedition on the following

stations:
St. 24. (63° 06’ N. Lat. 56° 00’ W. L. 1190 fms. Mud. 2° 7 bottom temp.). 1 specimen.
— 25. (63°30 — 54°25 — 582— — 3°6 — ). 167 —_
= EES (GSP S| ee Or 2 0) te a ee
= "40;;(62° 00, = — 21°36 — 845 =: — 3°9 — ae 15 —
— 63. (62°40. — 19°05) — 800 — — 43 — \n are _

70 ECHINOIDEA. I.

St. 69. (62° go’ N. Lat., 22° 17'W.L. 589 fms. Mud. 3°9 bottom temp.). I specimen.
— 73. (62°58° — 23°28 — 486— — 5°71 _ bh 3 —
— 76. (60°50 — 26°50°' — 806 — — 3°7 ~- ees --
— 83. (62525 = "28°30" = “org a — jo 8 —

From previous collections we have some specimens from the Davis Strait (66° 49’ N. Lat,
56° 28’ W. L. 235 fathoms. Wandel).

Phormosoma placenta is distributed over the whole northern part of the Atlantic, from the West
Indies to the Davis Strait, from the Bay of Biscay to the Farde Islands and Iceland. It has been
taken on depths from 150—1356 fathoms (Bell Catalogue, Hoyie 202, Rathbun 337), but it seems
chiefly to be found on ca. 4oo—1000 fathoms. Koehler (226. p.gt1) also observes that it is «rélative-
ment rare dans les dragages profonds». It is an archibenthal form scarcely occurring on the great
depths in the Atlantic, but limited to the territories of the mentioned depth that stretch across the
Atlantic south of Iceland and then follow the European and American coasts southward. It is scarcely
found north of the ridge across the Denmark Strait or that between Iceland and the Farée Islands.

It seems absolutely to demand a positive bottom temperature.

6. Calveria hystrix") Wyv. Thomson.
Pl. III. Figs. 1—2. Pl. XI. Figs. 5, 29. Pl. XII. Fig. 34. Pl. XIII. Figs. 17, 18. Pl. XIV. Figs. 13, 26.
Synonym: dsthenosoma hystrix (Agassiz, Bell, Koehler etc).
Non: Calverta (Asthenosoma) fenestrata WWyv. Thomson.

Principal literature: Wyv. Thomson: Echinoidea of «Porcupine» (395) p. 738. Pl. LXAIV—LXV.

A. Agassiz: Revision of Echini Il. p.273. Pl. Il.c Fig. 1—5 (?).—6 p.74.—14 p.3. PI. Il. Fig. 1—2.
— W.E. Hoyle: Revised List of Brit. Echinoidea. (202) p. 407. — F. Jeffr. Bell: 72 p.526. Pl. XXIV—
XXV. — Catalogue of British Echinoderms. p. 143. — R. Koehler: 229 p.9.

After the excellent description of this species by Wyv. Thomson it is unnecessary here to
give a new thorough description of it; only a few points stand in need of a somewhat more exact
description than has hitherto been given.

The primary spines on the actinal side are curved (somewhat more than shown by the figure
(Pl. III. Fig. 2)), and end in a small, short, and somewhat widened hoof; it is whitish, and consequently
rather conspicuous on the pink spine. «Flaring at the extremity», Agassiz (14 p.5) says of the spines,
otherwise their ending in a hoof is not mentioned in the literature. In transverse sections of the
spines (PI. XI. Fig. 5) it is seen that the longitudinal ridges are rather low, widened in the outer part,
with a little projection (indented) on the outside. The small spines on the abactinal side give in trans-
verse sections a figure a little different (Pl. XI. Fig.5b); the outer surface of the longitudinal ridges
is finely arcuate, and their edges are almost joining.

The pedicellariz have been excellently described and figured by Wyv. Thomson, who gives,
however, no figures of the single valves, so that the features systematically most important cannot be
seen in his figures. In the larger form of tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIV. Fig. 26) the blade is highly

") On PIL. III it is wrongly called Asthenosoma; this plate was reproduced before my stay at British Museum, that is
to say, before I had a quite clear understanding of the generic relations of the Echinothurids.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 71

involuted, only the point is somewhat widened, and the edge of this terminal part is almost straight
cut off, but irregularly serrate. The involuted part of the blade is filled by an irregular net of meshes.
In the smaller form of tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XIII. Figs. 17—18) there is a comparatively larger
widened part in the point of the blade, and a corresponding smaller, involuted part; this feature is
rather varying according to the size. The edge of the widened part is also here irregularly serrate,
but may in the smallest specimens be almost quite straight and regularly serrate. The blade is less
curved in the small form than in the large one, and accordingly the valves are less wide apart when
the pedicellaria is shut, which feature is excellently seen in the figures of Wyv. Thomson. I quite
agree with Wyv. Thomson, when he thinks this smaller form to be «a modification of the first
more or less reduced in size and lengthened in its proportions»; on the other hand I must protest
against his finding it «like some of the common varieties in the Cidaridz» (op. cit. p. 739). Any resem-
blance to the pedicellariz of the Cidarids is absolutely not found, except so far that both forms are
pedicellariz, and as such agree in their chief structures. — The size of the tridentate pedicellarice
(the head) is up to 1:2™™, as stated by Wyv. Thomson. The neck is rather short in the large pedi-
cellariz, somewhat more developed in the small ones. The triphyllous pedicellarie have a very large
cover-plate, most frequently almost without holes; only in the median line there is a series of large
holes, made by protuberances from the sides of the cover-plate growing towards the middle and coa-
lescing there (Pl. XII. Fig. 34). The outer edge is rather strongly dentate. The stalk of the pedicel-
lariz is of the structure common in the Echinothurids, irregularly perforated. The sphzeridice are rather
long-stalked, their head beautifully round and smooth (Pl. XIV. Fig. 13).

The spicules are arranged in two series in the lower part of the tube feet; they are here
narrow, more or less rod-shaped, with few, sometimes no holes (Pl. XI. Fig. 29); they are placed across
the longitudinal axis of the foot. Above they are large, irregular fenestrated plates quite encompassing
‘the foot.

The «longitudinal muscles» are well developed; on the other hand no distinct organs of
Stewart were seen in the specimen I opened. To be sure, Koehler (op.cit.) states the organs of
Stewart to be well developed. As Koehler, however, follows Bell in regarding Calveria hystrix and
Jenestrata as synonyms, it cannot be seen, which of these species he has examined. Nor could I see
the organs of Stewart in a specimen of the latter species.

Of Calveria hystrix two specimens have been obtained by the «Ingolf»-Expedition on the sta-
tions 89 (64° 45’ N. Lat., 27° 20’ W. L. 310 fathoms, the bottom mud, bottom temperature 8°), and 97
(65° 28’ N. Lat. 27° 39' W. L. 450 fathoms. Sandy mud. Bottom temperature 5°1). The specimen from
st. 97 is very beautifully preserved, and as the colour has almost not faded — to judge by a coloured
sketch made on board from the living animal — it is here figured in colours (PI. III. Figs. 1—2); only
the darker bands mentioned by Wyv. Thomson (p. 740), are no longer seen distinctly; in the original
sketch they are indicated.

Whether the specimen of 3™™ mentioned by Agassiz in Rev. of Echini, Pt. II. p. 273, really is
a C. hystrix, cannot be seen from the figures. Agassiz, to be sure, says that «the pedicellariee are
similar»; but it is not quite evident whether they resemble those of C. hystrix, or those of Asthenosoma

Grubet; and even if the meaning be that they resemble the figures of the pedicellarie in C. hystrix

72 ECHINOIDEA. I.

given by Wyv. Thomson, the statement is not to be relied on, as the most characteristic feature of
these, the irregular edge of the terminal part of the blade, has not before been observed.

The statements in the literature with regard to the distribution of this species, are upon the
whole quite unreliable, as we cannot be sure that it is really this species which has been examined
in each case. No doubt the statements apply often to Av@osoma fenestratum, and probably also to
A. Belli Mrtsn. (see above p.54—-55), which has likewise been confounded with C. Zystrix. It may, however,
be taken to be probable that its distribution is the same as that of Phormosoma placenta, viz. ca. 1OO—
ca. 1000 fathoms along the coasts of Europe and North America, and across the Atlantic south of
Iceland. It is only known from the territory with positive bottom temperature. In the «cold area»

it is certainly not found.

7. Arzosoma fenestratum (Wyvy. Thomson).
Pid. Hiess: PUSS Big. 330 Peeve Higsai. 6,145,907, 09, 245 32:
Synonyms: Calveria fenestrata Wyv. Thomson.
Asthenosoma fenestratum (A. Agass.).
—_ Reynoldsi A, Agass.
Non: Calveria (Asthenosoma) hystrix Wyv. Thomson.

Principal literature: Wyv. Thomson: Echinoidea of «Porcupine» (395) p. 741. Pl. LXIII. g—10,
LXVI—LXVIL— A. Agassiz: 6. p.75. «Blake»-Echini (9) p. 29. Pl. XII—XIV. (« Asthenosoma hystrix»).
— W.E. Hoyle: Rev. List of Brit. Echinoidea (202). p. 408. — F. Jeffr..Bell: 72. Pl. XXIV. Fig. 1,
Pl. XXV.

The reasons why this species is not, as has been supposed by Bell (72) and Koehler (2269),
synonymous with Calveria hystrix, but on the contrary must be referred to another genus, have been
given above (p. 52—53). — In «Preliminary Report of the «Blake»-Echini» (6. p.75) Agassiz describes an
Asthenosoma by the name of A. Reynoldsi, «readily distinguished from A. hystv7x by the larger, higher
coronal plates, the prominent vertical row of primary tubercles on the outer edge of the interambu-
lacral area on the abactinal side, the less numerous secondaries and miliaries and the color of the test.
The primary spines, quite closely packed, on the actinal side, are long, slender, slightly curved, and
trumpet shaped; on the abactinal side they form one principal vertical row extending half-way to the
apical system near the outer edge of the interambulacral areas. The rest of the test is covered by
distant small secondary spines». After having examined a great many specimens, Agassiz has later
(9. p. 29) got the conviction that the specimens he separated as A. Reynoldsii, are only large speci-
mens of Asthenosoma hystrix; «the differences, striking as they appear, are merely due to age».

From the «Ingolf» (st. 89) we have a specimen, no doubt identical with the «4. Reynoldsit» of
Agassiz; it agrees very well with the description quoted, and with a specimen received from U. S.
National Museum under the name of «Asthenosoma hystrix», and both agree exactly with a fragment
of a type specimen of Calveria fenestrata which I had occasion to examine in British Museum (see
above p. 53). It is true that the tetradactylous pedicellariz are wanting in both specimens as well as
in the mentioned type specimen; but in all other respects they are quite similar, and above all, the

tridentate pedicellarize are identical in all of them. There can be no doubt that the long missed, at

ECHINOIDEA. I. 73

last almost mystical Calveria fenestrata has here been refound. It proves, into the bargain, to be common
enough, and has only been missed, because it has been confounded with Calveria hystrix. The exceed-
ingly remarkable tetradactylous pedicellarie, which would be an excellent character of this species,
seem generally to be wanting, probably broken off, possibly originally wanting in some specimens (as
in other Echinids individuals are often found quite wanting some kind of pedicellarize normally found
in the species, — for instance globiferous pedicellarize in Echinus Alexandri). To be sure, the differ-
ence between the two species with regard to their habitus is considerable; but if we examine more
exactly the details of this difference, we shall be much surprised to find a great conformity in almost
all external features, above all in the arrangement of the tubercles. No other difference can in reality
be given with regard to the common appearance than the fact that A. fenestratwm is far more robust
than Calveria hystrix, and that the colour is different. The great difference in the form of the plates
in the two species emphasized by Wyv. Thomson as a chief character, is only to be seen in dried
specimens, and, strictly speaking, only from the inside; it is moreover, as shown by Bell (op. cit.),
subject to great variation. It is only by examining the pedicellariz that we find sure characters. As
the pedicellariz have not hitherto been taken into consideration, there is, so far, a good excuse of the
fault committed by the confounding of the two species.

A thorough description of this species is not necessary here, any more than with regard to
the two preceding ones; I shall only make some supplementary remarks, and for the rest the reader
is referred to the descriptions by Wyv. Thomson and Agassiz (the latter one to be found under
A. Reynoldsit).

The primary spines of the actinal side end in a small, short, and rather broad hoof; this I take
to be what Agassiz means by calling them «trumpet-shaped». The structure is as in Calveria hystrix,
only that the spines seem here always to be smooth, while in C. fystrix they are more or less thorny.
(Transverse section. Pl. XI. Fig.8). The spicules are large, irregular fenestrated plates, which in the
outer part of the tube foot encompass it completely; in the lower part they are somewhat smaller, and
are arranged in four longitudinal series. Sucking disk well developed.

The tetradactylous pedicellarie I have not seen, but as in 4. cortacewm they are quite similar
to those figured by Wyv. Thomson for 4. fenestratum, it may be considered rather certain that no
specific characters are found in them. Such characters are, on the contrary, found in the tridentate
pedicellariz, as shown above. There are two forms of tridentate pedicellariz. In the larger form,
which has been overlooked by Wyv. Thomson, but which I have found in the mentioned type
specimen, the blade is much involuted and curved outward. The point is somewhat widened, and has
two deep sinuations in the edge on each side (Pl. XIV. Fig. 32), but the edge is otherwise not indented.
The blade is filled by a rather coarse net of meshes. The valves are very wide apart when the pedi-
cellaria is shut. The base is especially large, so that there is room for a great many muscular fibres;
no doubt these pedicellarie are very powerful. The head has a length of up to 2™™, the neck is quite
short. — The smaller form is very much varying as to size and form; the larger ones (Pl. XIV. Fig.24)
recall the large form very much, but the valves are much less curved, the widened part of the point
is comparatively larger, and the edge not so deeply sinuate. In the smallest ones the valves are

almost not separated, and the edge is almost quite straight. Wyv. Thomson has figured one of
The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. L 10

74 ECHINOIDEA. I.

these smaller forms (Pl. LXVII. Fig. 7). On Pl. XIV. Figs. 8, 17, 18, 24 valves of larger and smaller
specimens of this form have been figured; they are all extremely finely serrate in the edge. They
are short-necked as the large form, the smallest ones, however, with a somewhat longer neck. The
stalk of the common structure. The cover-plate of the triphyllous pedicellarie is highly developed
(on Pl. XII. Fig. 33 there is a broad, open space in the median line, but most frequently the projections
of the edges join in the middle, so that the common series of large holes in the median line is formed);
the valves are lengthened, narrow below, rather abruptly widened above. The edge finely serrate. —
The spheeridiz (Pl. XIV. Fig. 14) are somewhat more lengthened than in C. hystrax.

Wyv. Thomson (op. cit. p. 473) describes the colour of this species very thoroughly. Bell (72.
Pl. XXIV) gives a couple of excellent coloured figures of the two species hystrix and /enestratwm (only
the test). As already mentioned he regards them as one species, as he finds very great variation in
the size of the uncalcified space between the plates. With regard to the different colouring Bell
remarks: «The coloration of tests, however, does not often go far in helping in the discrimination of
species of Echinoids». He finds a considerable variation in the extent and intensity of the colour, and
some specimens are, moreover, quite bleached. — I am inclined to attach more importance to the
colour as a distinguishing mark between the Echinids. To be sure, bleached specimens are often met
with, and they, of course, cannot be recognised by the colour, but fortunately specimens are very often
found that have kept their natural colour almost completely, and such specimens are found, at all
events, in most of the divisions of Echinids. In such specimens the colour is a really good character,
as, according to my observations (and I have seen numbers of living Echinids, as well in northern
as in tropic seas) the species have most frequently a rather constant and characteristic coloration.
However, I think the colour to be only rarely an absolutely reliable character. As to the two
figures given by Bell there is, in my opinion, no doubt that Fig. 1 is 4. fenestratum and Fig. 2
Calverta hystrix.

The longitudinal muscles are well developed; I have not been able to find organs of Stewart
in the specimen I have opened.

Only one specimen has been taken by the «Ingolf», st. 89 (64° 45' N. Lat. 27° 20' W. L. 310 fathoms.
3ottom temperature 8°), the Denmark Strait.

With regard to the distribution of this species we have only few sure facts. The «Porcupine»-
Expedition took it off the Portuguese coast; that it is also found off the western coast of Ireland
appears with certainty from the paper by Bell (72) quoted above. Agassiz enumerates several
localities from the sea round Barbados for A. Reynoldsi, and in British Museum I have myself seen a
specimen (called 4. Aystrix) from Barbados, which is no doubt A. /exestratum. Our museum has
further received a specimen from Smithsonian Institution obtained near Florida (32° 36' N. Lat.
77° 291 15“ W.L. 258 fathoms); it is also called A. hystrix, but is A. fenestratum. From these statements
it may be concluded with rather great certainty that like P2. placenta and C. hystrix it is found in
the whole northern Atlantic, as well on the American as on the European side, and across the Atlantic
south of Iceland on the slopes towards the deep. Its vertical distribution seems to be somewhat
smaller than that of the other species, the greatest depth from which it is mentioned, being 373

fathoms (4. Reynoldsii, Agassiz, 6); the smallest depth on which it has been taken, is 81 fathoms

ECHINOIDEA. I.

“I
mn

(Hoyle, op.cit.). Thus it seems to belong more to the sublittoral fauna than to the archibenthal one.
It is certainly only found in places with positive bottom temperature. North of the ridge in the Den-
mark Strait and the one between Iceland and the Farée Islands it is scarcely found — still less in

the deep regions North of Iceland.

8. Sperosoma Grimaldii Koehler.
Pl.IV. Figs.3—5. Pl. XI. Fig.9. Pl. XII. Fig. 16. Pl. XIII. Figs. 12, 23. Pl. XIV. Figs. 2, 4, 4a, 6, 11, 31, 3
Literature: R. Koehler: 228. 229, p.16. PI.II, III ete.

Ww

Of this species we have two fine specimens from the «Ingolf»-Expedition, st.83 (62° 25) N. Lat.
28° 30' W. L. 912 fathoms. Bottom temperature 3°. The ridge south west of Iceland), a large one of a

diameter of 150™", and a small one of a diameter of 27™. The large specimen is much bleached, and

shows the violet colour only in spots — it has already been observed by Koehler that this species
has a tendency to lose the colour in alcohol; — the small specimen has kept the colour very
beautifully.

The large specimen agrees, with regard to the actinal side, exactly with the description by
Koehler; the abactinal side, on the other hand, shows some deviations, so that I felt a doubt whether
it might not possibly be another species than the specimens Koehler has had. So I sent the original
drawing of PI.IV. Fig.3 to Prof. Koehler, and asked him to give me his opinion with regard to this
fact, calling his attention to the deviations from his description, found in this specimen. He has then
informed me that in spite of the difference in the form of the plates and the arrangement of the pores
on the abactinal side he thinks it to be the same species, and trusting to his authority I refer this
beautiful specimen to SP. Grimaldi.

The ambulacral areas (of the abactinal side) are not narrower than the interambulacral ones,
but even a little broader. Just above the ambitus the middle part of the ambulacral area is only
formed by the primary plates, the inner accessory ambulacral plate is quite small, placed about at the
middle of the primary plate; the outer one is large reaching quite to the edge of the area, and often
expanding so much, that the primary plate does not reach to the edge. A little way, ca. 5—6 plates,
above the ambitus, the inner accessory ambulacral plate increases rather abruptly so much in size, that
it reaches quite to the median line of the area, and so it continues quite to the apical area. Thus the
primary ambulacral plates are here separated for their whole length; they are of almost the same
height from the median line of the area to its edge, and so the whole area looks rather regular’). —
The tube foot belonging to the inner accessory ambulacral plate, is well developed, that of the outer
accessory plate and of the primary one is quite rudimentary. The two tube feet of the accessory plates
are placed quite near each other, just at the boundary line between the plates, and in about the same
height; that of the primary plate is placed opposite to the interspace between the two others. The
form of the interambulacral plates is also somewhat different from that in the figure of Koehler; they
are distinctly bent in an angular manner, with the point turned towards the apical area.

The plates of the apical area cannot be seen through the skin, only the madreporite; the

1) The figure (Pl. IV. Fig. 3) does not render all these details of the structure of the ambulacral areas quite clear nor
quite exactly, but on the other hand it renders the habitus of the animal quite excellently.

10”

=6 ECHINOIDEA. I.

latter is very large and broad, and the pores spread also over some of the small plates inside of it.
Koehler says that the madreporite is triangular, very large, and prolonged; his figure does not show
this, there it is scarcely larger than the other genital plates. — The genital openings are covered
by a large genital papilla, 3—4™™ long, resembling a tube foot. Prof. Koehler informs me that
a similar formation was found in his specimens; he has seen traces of it on some of the plates; but
as his specimens were badly preserved he could not distinguish the nature of these traces with cer-
tainty, but took them to be loosened pieces of skin. After having seen my drawing he feels certain
that they were the genital papillae. — A similar formation is mentioned by de Loriol (246 p. 369) in
the specimen he (wrongly) takes to be a young Asthenosoma varium: «les pores génitaux sont trés
grands, circulaires, couverts d’une fine membrane au milieu de laquelle saillit la papille génitale»; for
the rest de Loriol has no further remarks of this peculiar formation.

Neither with regard to the spines of the dorsal side does this specimen quite agree with the
description of Koehler: «Dans les zones interambulacraires les tubercules primaires forment, vers le
milieu de chaque rangée de plaques, une file assez reguliére qui s’étend jusqu’a une petite distance
du périprocte, mais toutes les plaques interambulacraires ne portent pas de ces tubercules primaires»
(p. 19). Here they do not at all form a regular series, are on the contrary placed very irregularly.
According to Koehler the spines are much shorter on the abactinal side than on the actinal side;
in the specimen in hand the fact seems not to have been so. To be sure all the primary spines on
the abactinal side are broken, but to judge from the fragments kept, they must have been of about
the same length as the primary spines on the actinal side. As observed by Koehler, the abactinal
side looks rather naked here being far fewer spines than on the actinal side. — The structure of the
spines is the common beautiful one: regularly perforated tubes with raised longitudinal ridges, ending
in a fine point. Transverse sections of the large primary spines from the actinal side (Pl. XI. Fig. ga)
show the longitudinal ridges highly developed, with the outer surface widened, so that their edges
join completely; they are much hollowed along the median line; secondary connecting beams between
the longitudinal ridges may be more or less developed. The small spines on the abactinal side are
also provided with strong longitudinal ridges, with widened outer surface, and hollowed along the
median line (Pl. XI. Fig.gb). The primary spines on the actinal side as also the spines of the peristome
are somewhat thorny, the abactinal ones are quite smooth.

Koehler gives a figure of a whole tridentate pedicellaria, but he gives no informations of
the structure of the blade except the one thing that the edge is not serrate — and this is scarcely
correct, at all events it does not apply to the specimen in hand. In the largest pedicellarize (the head
of a length of up to 2™™) the valves are very broad and flat, and join completely, when the pedicel-
laria is closed (Pl. XIV. Fig. 33). The widenings from the upper end of the apophysis reach almost or
quite to the edge of the blade, which is not involuted; in the outer part of the blade the edge is
somewhat sinuate. The blade is filled by a very complicated net of meshes continuing into strong
spines, arranged tolerably in longitudinal series (Pl. XIII. Fig. 12). In smaller pedicellarie the net of
meshes is more slightly developed, and only quite few teeth or none at all are found (Pl. XIV. Figs. 2,
6). The quite small ones have only an indication of a net of meshes above the apophysis, and their

blade is much narrower. As all transitions are found between these forms, no distinction can be made

ECHINOIDEA. I. 77

between two kinds of tridentate pedicellariz. The neck is rather short, the stalk of the common
structure (Pl. XIV. Fig. 31). The cover-plate of the triphyllous pedicellariz is rather well developed,
with numerous small holes; the outer part of the blade is not very broad, the edge finely serrate
(Pl. XII. Fig. 16).

The spicules of the tube feet on the actinal side are large, generally somewhat curved fenes-
trated plates (Pl. XIV. Fig.4a); they inclose the foot completely and are not distinctly arranged in
longitudinal series. A little sucking disk is found with a rather irregular calcareous rosette (Pl. XIV.
Fig. 4). Just below the sucking disk the spicules stick, so that this part of the tube foot cannot
be contracted, whereas the other part is highly contractible, as is commonly the case in the Echinids;
the point with the sucking disk is then seen to be sharply marked off from the other, much thicker
part of the tube foot. In the contracted part the spicules are arranged in such a way as to form an
imbrication. The tube feet of the abactinal side have, as usual, no sucking disk, and the spicules are
small, irregular, branched calcareous bodies (Pl. XIV. Fig. 4a), arranged in 2—3 longitudinal series.

The spheeridiz are as usual placed along the tube feet quite up on the abactinal side, where
they are situated at the large tube foot, 1—3 spheeridie at each foot. They are rather lengthened
(RISVS Bios):

Together with this specimen a beautiful, small one has been taken, as mentioned above, of a
diameter of 27™™, which I suppose will have to be referred to the same species, although it differs
somewhat from the large specimen with regard to the structure of the test (PI.IV. Figs. 4, 5). The
ambulacral areas are somewhat narrower than the interambulacral ones, also on the actinal side. The
tube feet are placed in three series, but not very far from each other; they are arranged in arcs of
three as in an Achinus, which is especially distinctly seen on the abactinal side. The small ambula-
cral plates are not distinct, the primary ones are especially regular and straight; this applies also to
the interambulacral plates, which are, accordingly, not yet angularly bent as in the adult. The primary
spines and tubercles form rather regular series in both areas; in the ambulacral areas there are on
the actinal side a couple of especially large ones near the ambitus, much larger than the adjoining
ones; in some plates spines are quite wanting. In the interambulacral areas they form a more regular
series on either side gradually increasing in size towards the ambitus; primary tubercles are found in
all the plates, and some have, besides, a few secondary tubercles. On the abactinal side the series of
tubercles are very regular in the ambulacral areas where the size is about the same till towards the
apical area. The tubercles of the interambulacral areas are more unequal, some being quite small,
others very large. The spines, unfortunately, are all broken. The apical area is large, the madre-
porite rather distinct. No genital papillae are as yet developed, nor are the pores as yet formed.
The pedicellariz are as in the large specimen, but as yet no large tridentate pedicellarice with the blade
filled by a thorny net of meshes are found. Of the tube feet on the abactinal side only the innermost
one of each arc is well developed, the two others are rudimentary as in the large specimen. The
spicules of the tube feet of the actinal side are as those of the large specimen, only somewhat smaller
and distinctly arranged in series. The sucking disk only slightly developed. In the abactinal tube
feet the spicules have only just begun to appear.

Sperosoma Grimaldii was hitherto only known from the Azores, from c. 600—930 fathoms. As

78 ECHINOIDEA. I.

it is now also known from the sea south of Iceland, it is to be supposed that its distribution will
prove to agree with that of the three other Echinothurids mentioned in the preceding, so that it

belongs to the rich fauna found on the large slopes towards the deep of the Atlantic.

g. Tromikosoma Koehleri n. g., n. sp.
PL XI Figs, 2, 13. Pl XII. Figs. 22, 31, 41. Pl. XIV. Figs. 12, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30.
Of this species we have only one very large specimen, 180™™ in diameter, from st. 36 (61° 50’
N. Lat. 56° 21’ W. L. 1435 fathoms, bottom temperature 2°), the Davis Strait. Unfortunately it is very
badly preserved, so that the description cannot be complete, and no figure can be given of the whole
animal. So many characters may, however, be distinguished in the animal before us, that genus and
species can be recognised with certainty. — With regard to the generic characters see above p. 64—65.
The structure of the test cannot be described completely, as the whole actinal side is torn;
the abactinal side, on the other hand, is whole,
and permits an examination of the form of the
plates (Figs. 5—6). The ambulacral areas (Fig. 5) are
uncommonly broad, a little broader than the inter-

ambulacral areas. The primary ambulacral plates are

angularly bent, with their top turned towards the

ambitus; the outer half is a litte narrower than the

Fig. 6.

i f : inner one. The secondary ambulacral plates are
Piece of ambulacral and interambulacral area of Tyvometko-

soma Koehler? (#/:). In the animal the boundaries between particularly well developed, especially the outer one

Cee ee eee VeRITSUTGL aEaabE which reaches quite to the edge of the ambulacral
area. Near the apical area the inner accessory ambulacral plate reaches quite to the median
line where it adjoins the point of the primary ambulacral plate from the opposite side. Thus the
primary ambulacral plates of the same side are here quite separated. The pores of the accessory plates
are situated near the boundary line between the plates, the pore of the primary ambulacral plate is
placed about under that of the inner accessory plate. Also the interambulacral plates are angularly
bent, but in a direction contrary to that of the ambulacral plates (Fig. 6).

The primary spines are placed rather scattered and irregularly. On the actinal side, near the
ambitus, 3—5 large spines are found, ending in a large, white hoof (Pl. XIV. Fig. 30); (this, I suppose,
applies to all of them, but they were all broken, and the hoofs torn off were at the bottom of the glass in
which the animal was kept.) They are not placed in regular series, in the ambulacral areas only one is
found in each plate, in the interambulacral areas two in each plate. The areoles are rather large, but
widely separated, forming no horizontal series. The whole actinal side is otherwise rather closely set with
fine secondary spines. The peristome is closely set with shorter, somewhat club-shaped, in the lower part
skin-covered spines, which are — at all events some of them — provided with a little hoof in the point
narrower than the spine (Pl. XIV. Fig. 28). The hoof, as is commonly the case, is of another structure
than the spine, being smooth, compact, while the spine (at all events in the lower part) is tubiform,
and provided with thorny ridges; the hoof is very distinctly limited, so that it looks like a little joint

on the end of the spine. (Also the hoof of the large spines is sharply limited from the other part of

ECHINOIDEA. I. 79

the spine (Pl. XIV. Fig. 30), being placed like a cap on the point.) — It cannot be decided, whether the
spines of the peristome are placed in concentric circles, but I think it probable. On the abactinal side
the rather numerous primary spines are irregularly scattered over the whole surface, not arranged in
series (Figs. 5—6). A great many miliary tubercles carrying small spines or pedicellarie, are scattered
over as well the ambulacral as the interambulacral plates.

The structure of the spines is as usual. The small ones are regular, perforated tubes ending
in a fine point; no thorns seem to be found on them. The large spines with the hoofs are constructed
in a more complicated manner. The longitudinal ridges are very prominent, narrow, widened in the
outer end, and a little hollow on the outside; in transverse sections they are T-shaped. Between these
ridges connecting beams are often developed, so that a rather complicated reticulation is formed;
towards the central hollow the boundary is regular. The small abactinal spines have little conspicuous
longitudinal ridges, not widened along the outer surface (Pl. XI. Fig. 2, a—c).

The apical area resembles that of Hygrosoma luculentum, which has heen figured by Agassiz
(Chall. Ech. Pl. X.a. Fig. 3); but the form of the plates is otherwise only seen with difficulty.

The tube feet are placed in one irregular series on the actinal side; on the abactinal side they
are placed alternally two opposite each other, and one single, as is shown by the pores in Fig. 5; most
frequently the inner one of the two placed at the same height (the one in the inner accessory ambu-
lacral plate) is somewhat larger than the others. The spicules are irregular, net-shaped plates; they
may be exceedingly complicated, and are not arranged in longitudinal series, but inclose the whole
foot. They are placed in 2—3 layers; in the tube feet of the abactinal side the inmost layer consists
of larger, perforated plates, the outermost one of irregularly branched spicules (Pl. XI. Fig. 13), in the
tube feet of the actinal side the whole thing forms a complete confusion of net-shaped plates. No
sucking disk is developed.

The spheridiz (Pl. XIV. Fig. 12) are of the common form, and, as is commonly the case in
the Echinothurids, are placed along the series of tube feet quite up on the abactinal side.

The pedicellarie: The tridentate pedicellarie occur in two different forms, not, however,
sharply distinguished. In the larger form (Pl. XII. Fig. 41, Pl. XIV. Fig. 21), the head of which reaches
a length of up to 3'5™™, the blade is filled by a very complicated net of meshes rising into strong
thorns, partly arranged in series; it is somewhat widened in the point, more narrow in the middle,
but the edges, which are here coarsely serrate, are not involuted. The valves are rather wide apart,
when the pedicellaria is shut. The neck is very short, the stalk of the common structure. In the
smaller form the blade is almost of the same breadth throughout its whole length, not widened
in the point; it resembles very much the form found in Phormosoma placenta — which is, no doubt,
as well the most frequent as the simplest form of tridentate pedicellarie in the Echinothurids — but
the widenings of the upper end of the apophysis reach quite to the edge of the blade, they do not
end down on the side as in Ph. placenta. In the bottom of the blade there is a not very much devel-
oped reticulation, in the smallest ones almost none is found (Pl. XI. Fig. 22), in the larger (Pl. XIV.
Fig. 16) it is more developed, in the largest ones even with a short, prominent, serrate crest, thus
forming a transition to the large form. In the small ones the valves join completely, when the pedi-

cellaria is shut; the edge is finely serrate; the neck is rather long, the stalk of the common structure.

80 ECHINOIDEA. L

In the triphyllous pedicellarize the cover-plate is rather little developed; the outer edge is finely ser-
rate (Pl. XII. Fig. 31); upon the whole they show no great difference from the common form. On the
other hand the ophicephalous pedicellariz are very peculiar (Pl. XIV. Figs. 19, 23, 25). The valves are
highly constricted in the middle, the outer part widens suddenly to the same breadth as below, so
that the blade is somewhat widened in a wing-shaped manner. The edge is thick and strongly ser-
rate; the middle part of the blade is deep and perforated, the wing-shaped widenings flat, without
holes. The arcs below the articular surface peculiar of the ophicephalous pedicellariz, are well devel-
oped. The neck is short — contrary to the ophicephalous pedicellariz of the Echinids — and it
seems to contain only longitudinal muscles. The stalk is quite different from that of the other pedi-
cellariz: a wide tube with rather few, small holes, somewhat widened above, but not below, only are
the holes here placed more close together than in the other part of the stalk. The length of the head
is ca.o'5™™, that of the stalk ca.3™™. They are only (?) found on the abactinal side.

The colour is gray with a slight indication of violet; in the living animal the colour was about

the same as in the preserved one. The spines white.

Besides the species here described, at least one more species of the family of Echinothurids is
found in the northern Atlantic; Agassiz in «Blake»-Echini (9) p. 35 mentions a specimen of «Phormo-
soma uranus» from the Faréde Channel; and on the basis of this statement Bell (73) and Hoyle (202)
mention Phormosoma uranus among the Echinids occurring in the British seas. Also Sladen (367.
p- 701) mentions Ph. wranus from the south west coast of Ireland, as he finds a specimen before him
agreeing with the figures and descriptions of Wyv. Thomson and Agassiz. According to what
has been stated above (p. 58) with regard to «Phormosoma» uranus, it is impossible to know with
certainty, whether the specimens that Agassiz and Sladen have had, have really been «Phormosoma»
(Echinosoma) uranus and not Hygrosoma Petersit. As no specimen of these two species has been
obtained by the «Ingolf»-Expedition, I shall give no thorough description of them, but only refer to
what has been said above of these species. Otherwise it may be taken to be probable that both these
species and also the Av@osoma Belli hitherto only known from Barbados, are found in the northern
Atlantic on the slopes towards the deep, and belong to the wonderfully rich archibenthal fauna,
peculiar to the smaller depths along the European and American coasts and across the Atlantic, south
of Iceland. The three mentioned species are therefore included in the following table of the North-

atlantic Echinothurids.

Table of the Echinothurids occurring in the Northern Atlantic.

1. The primary spines on the actinal side straight, inclosed
by a thick bag of skin; great difference between the
actinal and abactinal sides. The tube feet on the actinal
side in one series. Only tridentate and triphyllous pedi-

cellarize, the former simply leaf-shaped................... Phormosoma placenta Wyv. Thomson.
The primary spines on the actinal side curved, ending

insaviargenronm Smaller hook y1-e heen 2.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 81

2. The tube feet on the actinal side in a single, almost regular
GSOISSS: (HONS WEE AS CONE, Shino one Uicealc ooo eon deans Heme aac 3:

The tube feet on the actinal side in three more or

Lesseseparrateds Series yaya snc oti -lietaGiok weasel ele lens NG Al els 5.
au Ophicephalous pedicellaricevare found. 25.22.82. sea. ss. e. Tromtkosoma Koehlert Mrtsn.
Only tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz.......... 4.
4. The tridentate pedicellarize simply leaf-shaped............ Echinosoma uranus (Wyv. Thomson).

The tridentate pedicellaricee with much involuted blade,
the point widened in a spoon-like manner with straight,
dimechymSerrate wed emer eae kesays sictas oFsks one ic deye a) ater sel bbs lodeeNe Fygrosoma Petersi (A, Agass.).
5. The three series of tube feet rather close together; the
ambulacral areas of the common structure; the tridentate
pedicellarize not simply leaf-shaped. The hoof small..... 6.
The three series of tube feet widely separated; the
ambulacral areas on the actinal side formed by 8 series of
plates. Tridentate pedicellarize simply leaf-shaped, the
largest ones with a rich, thorny net of meshes filling the
bladetmeihephook Wargiewe. creer nls ce ers ere ei tecerelertl ota sia Sperosoma Grimaldi Koehler.
6. The large tridentate pedicellariz with much involuted
edge; the widened part of the point finely, but irregularly
serrate in the edge; the smaller tridentate pedicellariz of
AMSIIMilaigwrs EHMCLUTes eye eta ys oes ale eens soon onsiaVaie eels we ehale els Calveria hystrix Wyv. Thomson.
The large tridentate pedicellarize with much involuted
edge; the widened part of the point is deeply and coarsely
indented in the edge. Tetradactylous pedicellarize may be
OUI! 5 aman aonnad Bon pu ibe Hpies 6 onion ccs Gai oes Ae eo 7

The smaller pedicellariz with the widened part of the

Ss

point coarsely sinuate in the edge.........-...e.ee eens Areosoma fenestratum Wyv. Thomson.
The smaller pedicellarize with the widened part of the

point of the blade straight and finely serrate in the edge.

Moreover a very large form is found with coarsely in-

Gleyrinsal Soler aoc encrnanee Ade da on. clen sre toon orion Game . Areosoma Belli Mrtsn.

Fam. Temnopleuride.

Hypsiechinus n. ¢.
The test generally without distinct grooves or furrows; no distinct slits in the edge of the
mouth. The buccal membrane covered with large plates; all the buccal tube feet are generally well

developed in the adult individuals. None of the ocular plates reaches quite to the periproct, which is

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. II

82 ECHINOIDEA. I.

covered by one large plate and several small ones. The pores are trigeminate, but placed in an almost
straight line; only in the lower part of the areas they are distinctly seen to be trigeminate. The spines
are rather highly thorny, those nearest to the peristome curved. The globiferous pedicellarize without
any neck; the blade with simple edges, not connected by cross-beams; 2—3 teeth on either side. The

spicules irregular, three-radiate. The auricule are formed as two narrow crests, not joining above.

This little Echinid recalls to some degree Prionechinus A. Ag. and together with the latter
genus and the genera 77igonocidaris, Temnechinus, and Cottaldia it may be taken to form a special
group of the Temnopleurids. I shall not, however, here enter into a nearer examination of the
classification of the Temnopleurids, as I have not yet studied this question sufficiently, but shall only
make some observations with regard to the mentioned genera, which I have had occasion to examine.
Especially Prionechinus and Cottaldia stand in need of a more thorough description than has hitherto
been given, and I have in British Museum seen the type specimens of both of these genera.

Prionechinus sagittiger A. Ag. According to Agassiz only badly preserved specimens of this
species are found in the collections from «Challenger». I have, however, seen a very well preserved
specimen from st. 218, and the figure (Chall. Ech. Pl. VIl.a. Fig. 11) of the whole animal given by
Agassiz is, I suppose, taken just from this specimen. Further I have seen a specimen from st. 207,
determined as Prionechinus sagittiger; it is, no doubt, a quite different genus. The specimen from
st. 218, which corresponds to the habitus figure of this species given by Agassiz, must then be
considered as the type of it.

«There is but a single row of plates of pores of equal size in the ambulacral zone», it is said
in the description (Chall. Ech. p. 109). I do not understand the meaning of this sentence; according to
my observations the ambulacral areas show no unusual structures. — It is further said in the descrip-
tion that «the pairs of large pores are arranged in a single vertical row», and according to Pl. VI.a.
Fig. 14 there are only two pairs of pores for each ambulacral plate. This does not at all hold good
with regard to Prionechinus; first this figure is no doubt drawn from the specimen from st. 207, in
which the pores are really very large and form a straight line, and secondly the figure is incorrect
— also in this specimen 3 pairs of pores are found for each ambulacral plate. In the real Preonechinus
the pores are very small, and only one pore for each tube foot is seen distinctly. There are as usual
three pairs of pores for each ambulacral plate. — «In all the buccal plates the tentacle of one of the
pairs is rudimentary or even wanting». The meaning of this indistinct sentence is that in each pair
of buccal tentacles one is rudimentary or wanting; it is seen on the Fig. 12 of Agassiz — and in the
specimen from st.207. Perhaps this fact also applies to Prionechinus; it is now and then found in
Flypsiechinus, so that the feature is not at all unique. The peculiar spines resemble those of //yfsz-
echinus, but they are not curved. The spicules are bihamate, but very few, in most of the tube feet
none are found. The sucking disk is typically developed. — «The pedicellariz are numerous —; they
are all of the large-headed slender-stemmed form»; Agassiz gives no more informations of the pedi-
cellariz, and no figures are given. The four usual kinds of pedicellariee are found. The globiferous
ones (Pl. VII. Fig. 29) have only one, unpaired lateral tooth on the blade, the edges of which are thick,

not connected by cross-beams. ‘The poison glands are very small, not reaching to the basal part of

ECHINOIDEA. I. 83

the valve. The tridentate pedicellarie have rather strong teeth in the point of the blade (Pl. VIL
Fig. 21); along the median line of the blade the holes are large, lengthened; no net of meshes in the
bottom. Only the points of the valves join when the pedicellaria is shut; below they are wide apart.
The neck rather long. The ophicephalous pedicellariz are of the common structure resembling those
of Hypstechinus; they are short-necked. The triphyllous pedicellariaze are very small, with finely serrate
edge (Pl. VII. Fig. 25). The stalk of the pedicellarize consists of longitudinal fibres connected by cross-
beams to a compact reticulation, as in //yfszechinus.

That the specimen from st. 207 is no Prionechinus has been stated above; unfortunately it is
impossible to decide with certainty what it is, as all the pedicellarize are wanting. The spicules are
bihamate; the tube feet are remarkably broad at the base, corresponding to the uncommonly large
pores. The spines are of the same structure as in Prionechinus. As no sufficient characters can be
given of this form, I shall give it no name, but only separate it from Prionechinus.

From the Indian Ocean another species of Prionechinus has been described, Pr. Agassi2zii
Wood-Mason & Alock (441); whether it really belongs to the genus Prionechinus cannot bee seen from
the description, and no informations are given of the pedicellarize or spicules; no figure is given. As
the original description of the genus Prionechinus, as here shown, is anything but good and faultless,
the referring to this genus must be considered uncertain, until a closer examination has been made
with regard to the characters pointed out here.

Cottaldia forbestana A. Ag. To the description of Agassiz I can add the following informa-
tions. The globiferous pedicellarize (Pl. VII. Fig. 32), like those of Preomechinus, have only one, unpaired
lateral tooth, and the edges of the blade are thickened, but not connected by cross-beams; the basal
part is somewhat more rounded than in Prdonechinus. The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. VII. Fig. 22.
Pl. VIII. Fig. 33) resemble those of Prionechinus, but have only small teeth in the point of the blade.
The valves join only with the points, and are wide apart below, when the pedicellaria is shut. The
neck very short. The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. VII. Fig. 26) resemble those of
Prionechinus. The stalks of the pedicellarie are of the same structure as in Prionechinus and Hypsv-
echinus, only a little more dense. The spicules, as shown by Bell (50), are bihamate. The spines are
thicker and not so sharply serrate as in //yfszechinus, but the point is constructed as in the latter,
only more rounded. — Whether this species really belongs to the genus Coffaldia, which has been
established by Desor for some small fossil Echinids, must be regarded as very doubtful, as has also
been observed by Agassiz himself. Upon the whole the referring of recent forms to genera established
for fossil ones, is exceedingly problematic, if the tests do not show particularly characteristic features.
It has even proved impossible to classify the recent species correctly after the tests and spines only,
as has been shown above with regard to the Cidarids and Echinothurids, and it will be shown below
that the fact is quite corresponding with regard to «Echinometride» and «Triplechinide». Pomel
(324) refers this species to the genus Aréacina established by him. As the type of this species he’)
gives Arbacia monilis (Ag.) that is to say, a fossil form, and here the same observation holds good as
with regard to Cottaldia: we cannot prove at all that the recent form is the same genus, as we want
the most important characters. It must be admitted, however, that A. /orbesiana shows really a great

1) Revue des Echinodermes et de leur classification p. XLI. 1869 (?).

84 ECHINOIDEA. I.

resemblance in the structure of the test to A. momdl’s (comp. Chall. Ech. Pl. VH. Fig. 15 with Pl. XVIII.
Fig. 12.a in Desor: «Synopsis des Echinides fossiles», or with Pl. XV. Fig. 11 in Agassiz and Desor:
«Catalogue raisonné»), and so I shall establish no new genus for this form, but for the present let it
remain in the genus Avédacina.

Trigonocidaris albida A. Agass. The globiferous pedicellarie (Pl. VII. Fig. 31) chiefly as in
Arbacina, a single cross-beam may, however, be found between the edges of the blade; the poison
gland large reaching almost to the articular surface. I have found no tridentate pedicellariz in the
specimen before me. The ophicephalous pedicellariz are short-necked, with no special peculiarities.
The triphyllous pedicellariz are very small and of a rather peculiar form (Pl. VII. Fig. 23). The blade
is rather broad, round, the edge exceedingly finely serrate (the serrations can only be seen under
rather higher magnifying powers than those under which the figure is drawn). The spicules are biha-
mate (PI. VII. Fig. 28), very few. The spines are constructed after the same type as those of //ypsz-
echinus and Prionechinus; the primary spines round the mouth are curved.

The difference between Z77igonocidaris and Prionechinus seems to be very slight. The most
important one seems to be that Prionechinus has no such grooves in the test as those of 77zgonocidaris.
To be sure, Agassiz does not mention the feature at all, and neither have I examined myself how
the facts are in this respect; but I think that the very fact of none of us having observed such grooves,
may be taken as a proof that they, at all events, are only slightly developed; if this was not the case
they ‘would certainly have been observed.

Whether 7rigonocidarts monolint A. Ag. is a real Trigonocidaris cannot be decided after the one
known specimen. Only ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellariz are found on it, and they show
nothing remarkable; the latter are of the same peculiar form as in 77igonoc. albida, but the edge does
not appear to be serrate, even under the highest magnifying powers. The ophicephalous ones are
short-necked, and the stalk is constructed as in the other forms mentioned here. The spicules are
bihamate, rather small and numerous (PI. VII. Fig.27). To be sure, this very peculiar Echinid will
easily be recognised, even if our knowledge of its pedicellarize is deficient.

Temnechinus maculatus A. Ag. The buccal membrane, as stated by Agassiz, is quite naked
with the exception of the buccal plates; but it does not seem to have been observed that it con-
tains a great many bihamate spicules. Also the spicules of the tube feet are bihamate. Koehler (229)
has described the ophicephalous and globiferous pedicellarize, not, however, with a sufficiently exact
representation of the characteristic structure of the latter. The ophicephalous pedicellarize are long-
necked; Koehler thinks the valves to be uncommonly long, which does not appear to me to be the
case; at all events they show no peculiar structure. The globiferous pedicellariz, on the other hand,
are very peculiar and interesting. The small poison glands are double, and separated
through their whole length (Pl. VIIL Fig. 7), a feature which was hitherto quite unknown in the
Echinids, but which I have also found in Parasalenia and «Strongylocentrotus» erythrogrammus.
Whether this feature is a primitive one, is, I think, to be regarded as doubtful; at all events neither
Temnechinus, Parasalenia, nor Strongylocentrotus can be regarded as primitive forms. In other Echi-
nids the poison gland, to be sure, has a deep furrow above on the outside, and opens by a double canal

into the end-tooth — at all events in Spherechinus (v. Uexkiill 406); but this does not appear to me

ECHINOIDEA. I. 8s

a sufficient proof of the original structure having been a double poison gland. We should then except
to find a double poison gland in forms as A/yfszechinus and Parechinus; in these, however, it is not
found — but on the contrary in such specialised forms as the three species mentioned above. More
thorough examinations will be necessary in order to decide the question. The histological examina-
tions hitherto made of the globiferous pedicellarize, have chiefly been directed to SAhevechinus and
Echinus acutus; a much broader base of the examinations is necessary. — The form of the valves is
rather peculiar; the basal part is flatly widened, with rather sharp corners, the blade very narrow,
almost tubiform, the edges being almost quite coalesced on the inside, so that only a series of small
holes are found along the median line and one larger hole at the point; only one unpaired lateral
tooth (Pl. VII. Fig. 30). The triphyllous pedicellarize (Pl. VII. Fig. 24) are very small and resemble those
of Zrigonocidarts; no teeth are found in the edge.

Agassiz originally described this species under the name of Genoctdaris maculata, later he
thought that it ought to be referred to the genus Zemmnechinus, established by Forbes‘) for some
fossil forms with rather deep grooves in the sutures. The present species, however, has no such
grooves; Agassiz also admits that it shows «very marked differences from the species of Zemmnechinus
figured by Forbes» (Rev. of Ech. p. 286). But when the structure of the test is not the same in the
fossil species and the recent one, we cannot be warranted in classing them together; even if the struc-
ture of the tests was identical, we might doubt whether they were the same species, for, as has con-
stantly been shown by these examinations, identical structure of the test is no proof of near relation-
ship. But when the structure of the test is so different, as the case is here, there can be no question
of classing them together. Nor does it show any nearer relation to Ofechinuws Desor, to which genus
it, according to Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 286), is «closely allied»; Ofechimus is a genuine Temno-
pleurid with deep grooves in the sutures. I must completely assent to the opinion of Pomel that
this form ought to keep its original name of Genocidaris maculata.

This little Echinid, which was hitherto only known from the American side of the Atlantic
and the Azores, is also found in the Mediterranean. In our museum four specimens of it are found
taken at Syracuse on a depth of 12—15 fathoms by Dr. H. I. Hansen in 1893. Another species,

Temnechinus» Scille, from the Red Sea, has been described by Mazzetti (277—78).

By the name of Arédacina Pallaryi Gauthier (162) has described a little Echinid from the
coasts of Algeria, but it cannot be seen from the description and the figures where this form is to be
referred. Prof. Pallary has most kindly sent me some specimens of it, among others three which
have been determined by Gauthier himself as A. Pallaryi. They proved to be Genocidaris maculata;
thus the name of Arédacina Pallaryi may be struck out as a synonym. That it has no relation to the
genus Arbacina is sufficiently evident from the fact that in Arbacima the base of the tubercle is
smooth, as is expressly stated by Agassiz, Desor, and Pomel, and shown in the figures of A. monzlis
quoted above. But it is quite incredible that a form with a stellate tubercle-base should be of the
same genus as the mentioned Aréacina with smooth tubercle-base.

It seems to be unquestionable that ypszechinus is most nearly related to the forms here men-
tioned; its spines, buccal membrane, and structure of the test reminds very much of those, especially

1) Monograph of the Echinodermata of the British Tertiaries. 1552.

86 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Prionechinus and Trigonocidarts. Nevertheless its peculiar spicules and globiferous pedicellarize show
that the relation is not so very close. The globiferous pedicellariz are quite similar to those of
cEchinus» miliaris, but there can be no question of any nearer relation to this latter. On the other
hand this form of pedicellarie might indicate that it is a more primitive form than the other genera
here mentioned, in which the globiferous pedicellarize have only one unpaired lateral tooth. Also the
spicules indicate that it is a more primitive form; bihamate or similar regular spicules are otherwise
found in all «£chinide» and «Echimometride» (with the exception of Stomopneustes), but are wanting
in Cidaride, Salenide, Diadematide, Echinothuride, and Arbaciade, where only more or less irregular
fenestrated plates or thorny bows are found (Bell 50). Without entering on a nearer discussion of
the relationship of these forms, I shall here only give a table of the mentioned genera, which may,
I think, be of practical importance, as it is evident that these small forms have occasioned some diffi-
culties to the systematists. A facilitation of the determination will, I hope, lead to the discovery of
more related forms that may, no doubt, be found in the large, hitherto only little known tracts of the
ocean. That Genocidaris maculata has hitherto been overlooked in the Mediterranean, or at all events
misjudged, although it is, no doubt, rather commonly found in the Strait of Messina, presages that

we may still expect many new discoveries of these interesting small forms.

Table of the Genera.

1. The buccal membrane outside of the buccal plates covered by large plates.. 2.
ae pee = = Ss oS = = AKed shou. serene crytas 4.
2. The globiferous pedicellarize with the edges of the blade sharp, not connected
by cross-beams; several lateral teeth on either side. The spines strongly
thorny, those around the mouth curved; the spicules a little irregular, three-
radiate nots bilvaimate ye cy ey eeis: sukoshi cue suen: os cle aeass uoeoeus yates suctaser cre okie) as eae Hypsiechinus.

The globiferous pedicellariz with the edges of the blade thickened, with

only one unpaired lateral tooth; the spicules bihamate..................... By
2a bhestestimuchkerooved: ara. acess rhea acnR nant eer triyr ity seria eae Trigonocidarts.
— — not See OOO a ae Sees c Aid oie no Cie. F CBRE ETO Cm o Aol: Prionechinus.

4. The globiferous pedicellarize with the edges of the blade almost quite coa-
lesced on the inside, so that only a series of small holes is left. One very
lar genanalls plate Miers ci6 s/n: atte oo, WENT tone Gait Roker oes ois Ce ae eee Genocidaris.

The globiferous pedicellarize with the edges of the blade thickened, but
not connected by cross-beams. No very large anal plate.................... Arbacina.

10. Hypsiechinus coronatus n. sp.
PL V. Fig. 1. Pl. VII. Figs. 1—2o0. Pl. VIIL. Figs. 5, 9, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 38. PL XI. Fig. 6.
The test is flattened, more than twice as broad as high (the remarkably raised apical area not
included); the outline most frequently beautifully round, sometimes a little pentagonal. It is not

curved inward at the edge of the mouth. The mouth-slits indistinct, the peristome large. The apical

ECHINOIDEA. I.

ie)
|

area is large, in ¢ and young specimens slightly raised, in the adult 2 so much raised as to form a
very, conspicuous knob (PI. VII. Figs. 1—4). When both the peristome and the apical area are wanting,

the test resembles a little ring.

et eget |__ Diameter. [xeneatest Breadth. | Number of plates. tionwest eo
meter. |S NOt ecatome:|| APR | Apia: [tAmbule | Antule, |2-Ambnie-| spines, |”

9 35 isa] fee ie | a 35 | 8-9 | 7 =)

9 4 | 4 4:2 2 32" ||| «8 8 ro)

8 Weta 3 Sean | PSE Vie ah | yy oi

8 eo | Soe S| ES 3 || 8-9 7-8 | 9

Dee ale 35 | 5—6 8

68 | 2°5 Bn5 2°5 1'2 25 | 8—9 | 7-8 | Q

4 18 2°5 2'2 | I 1's | 5—6 | 5—6

3 Se ae 2 I | ll 4

All the measures are in millimetres.

The interambulacral areas are about twice as broad as the ambulacral ones; the boundaries
between the plates are very indistinct, especially in the ambulacral areas; they are given too distinctly
in the figures (Pl. VIII. Figs. 24—25). Near the apical area the ambulacral plates are single, farther
down they are coalesced in the common way, three and three. Here one larger tubercle is found for
each compound plate, and besides some quite small ones above each primary tubercle. The ambula-
cral plates are comparatively high, so that upon the whole the same number of ambulacral and inter-
ambulacral plates is found. The pores form almost a straight line, but are in reality trigeminate,
which fact, however, is not distinct in the upper part of the area; the upper hole of each pair of
pores is larger than the lower one. The interambulacral plates, especially above, are rather broad, the
horizontal boundary line between the plates bends downward in the middle; the median line of the
area is only slightly sinuate, likewise in the ambulacral areas. Each interambulacral plate has a not
very conspicuous primary tubercle near the sinuate lower edge and besides some miliarv tubercles:
In ¢ the upper plates are almost smooth, in ? these plates are very richly provided with miliary
tubercles. In the adult 2 the test most frequently has an irregular, grooved-netshaped surface, espe-
cially between the close-set tubercles on the upper interambulacral plates.

The primary spines are in the adult specimens hardly as long as the diameter of the test, in
small specimens somewhat longer than the diameter; the spines around the mouth are somewhat curved
in the point. All the spines are strongly indented, and end in a little, conical point, surrounded by
ca. 6 smaller points (PI. VIII. Fig. 9); the actinal spines end irregularly truncate, presumably owing to
wear (Pl. VIII. Fig.17). In transverse sections (Pl. XI. Fig.6) the spines are seen to consist of 6 longi-
tudinal ridges the outer edge of which is somewhat widened; they are united with each other so as
to form a little cavity in the middle, and 6 smaller cavities in a circle round this.

The buccal membrane is covered by large plates, which under the microscope are seen to be
common, almost smooth fenestrated plates. Those inside of the buccal plates are smaller and quite
smooth, and the plates decrease likewise in size towards the edge of the peristome (Pl. VII. Figs. 11, 15).

The buccal plates are more complicate, and form a little arch, as it were, over the base of the tube

88 ECHINOIDEA. I.

foot, with the opening directed towards the mouth. The two buccal tube feet are not placed in quite
the same line, but one a little outside of the other; this is most distinctly seen in younger specimens,
and in quite small young ones of a diameter of up to 2—3™™ only one tube foot of each pair is devel-
oped at all. Also in a single specimen of a diameter of 6™™ only one tube foot of each pair of mouth-
feet is developed; sometimes it may also be seen that one tube foot is quite wanting in one pair,
rudimentary in another, while both the tube feet are well developed in the other pairs. — A similar
feature is found, as stated by Agassiz, in Priomechinus, or, at ail events, in a form by Agassiz
wrongly referred to Prionechinus (see above p. 82—83). Spicules are not found in the buccal membrane,
the small gills contain the common irregular calcareous plates (Pl. VII. Fig. 12), only, however, in the
basal part; spines or pedicellariz are not found on the buccal membrane.

The apical area is very peculiar, especially in 2 — a well marked sexual difference being found.
In ¢ the apical area is only slightly raised in the middle (Pl. VII. Fig.9); the ocular plates are small,
all widely separated from the periproct, the genital plates are much larger, truncate, rather regularly
septangular, only the boundary line towards the ocular plates somewhat curved. Each genital plate
has one rather strong tubercle or a pair of such tubercles at the inner edge, the ocular plates are
quite smooth, or more rarely with a few, very small miliary tubercles. The genital pore is very small,
situated about in the middle of the plate. The madreporite is very little conspicuous, has only few
(2—3) pores. The periproct is covered by one larger plate and some smaller ones; in quite small speci-
mens the large plate covers the whole periproct.

In 9 the mutual relation of the plates is chiefly the same as in g, but the ocular plates and
especially the genital ones have been very much elongated and bent upward, so that the whole apical
area is raised like a knob. The lower part of the genital plates and the ocular plates in their whole
extent are quite smooth, but the inner (upper) part of the genital plates is very richly set with
tubercles forming, as it were, a crown round the upper edge of the knob (Pl. VIL Fig. 1). The peri-
proct as in g, without tubercles. The genital pores are large, and situated nearer to the outer
(lower) edge.

Of pedicellarize only three kinds are found: globiferous, ophicephalous, and triphyllous pedicel-
larie. Tridentate pedicellarize are wanting — at all events in the specimens in hand. The globiferous
pedicellarize (Pl. VII. Figs. 19, 20) remind very much of those in «Zchinus» miliaris. The upper ends
of the apophysis continue directly in the edges of the blade, which are sharp and run out into 2—4
teeth on either side; there are no cross-beams connecting the edges across the hollow inside of the
blade; the end-tooth especially large, of the structure typical in the Echinids. The glands are quite
small reaching only to the basal part; no neck. The ophicephalous pedicellariz (Pl. VII. Fig. 18,
Pl. VIII. Fig. 38) have a quite short neck, but otherwise they do not, any more than the triphyllous
pedicellarize (Pl. VII. Fig. 16), show conspicuous peculiarities. It is, however, to be noted that in the
triphyllous pedicellarie the edge is quite smooth. — The stalks of the pedicellarize consist of longi-
tudinal fibres connected by cross-beams to a rather compact reticulation; they are not hollow; they
increase evenly in strength downward, but are not widened at the base. — The spheeridize (Pl. VI.
Fig. 17) show no marked peculiarities; they are slightly spinulous in the point, short-stalked, often

somewhat irregular, and more globiform than the figured one.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 89

The tube feet have a typical sucking disk, as in an Echinus, but generally there are only
three leaves in the rosette (Pl. VII. Fig. 10). In the mouth feet the sucking disk, as in an Echinus, is
an oval, continuous ring, of a far more complicate structure than the parts of the sucking disk in the
other tube feet. The spicules (Pl. VI. Fig. 13) are small three-radiate, somewhat irregular bodies. In
the lower part of the tube feet almost none are found, nearest to the sucking disk they are more
numerous, and are here often a little branched and larger. No spicules are found in the skin at the
base of the spines, nor in the genital organs.

The dental apparatus is of the structure common in the Echinoids; on the other hand the
auricule are peculiar, only consisting of a pair of small processes, not joining above. None of the
specimens in hand show indication of any coloration.

This little Echinid is especially interesting by nursing its brood — a fact hitherto unknown
among the regular Kchinids, with the exception of two Cidarids: Stereocidaris nutrix and canaliculata.
As mentioned in the description there are in 2? a great many tubercles on the upper coronal plates,
and on the upper edge of the genital plates. The spines of these latter are bent downwards thus
joining those of the upper coronal plates. By this means a protected space is formed round the knob-
like process; the genital apertures open into this space, and here then the eggs and young are placed
protected by the spines (Pl. VII. Fig.5). The number of the eggs varies from 3—7; they are about
o5™™ in diameter. Sometimes they are all in the same stage of development, sometimes may be found
in the same individual almost quite developed young and eggs or embryos where the first skeletal
structures have not yet been formed.

It was not possible, by means of the material in hand, to study the whole development of the
young, only a few stages have been given (Pl. VIL Figs.6—8). In the youngest stage (Fig. 6) the first
beginning of the teeth is seen; the buccal plates are begun, and the primary tentacles may be dis-
cerned through a plate, which I take to be the terminal plate (the ocular plate). Between each pair
of buccal plates, a little outside, a larger unpaired plate is found, the basal plate (the genital plate?).
In the following stage (Fig. 7) the different parts of the dental apparatus are begun, and in some of
the buccal plates a larger hole has appeared. In the oldest stage (Fig. 8), in each pair of buccal plates
one large opening has been formed for the buccal tube foot, and this feature of only one tube foot being
developed, is still found, as mentioned above, in young specimens of a diameter of 2—3™", and
sometimes in still larger specimens. The smallest individuals, in which I have found both buccal
tube feet developed, had a diameter of 4™™. In the oldest stage figured, the five primary tube feet
are seen distinctly, and the five first spines, interambulacral ones, are begun. In corresponding stages
only one large anal plate is found (Pl. VII. Fig.14), which may be perforated by a larger opening;
accordingly it seems quite to encompass the anal aperture.

Of this especially interesting little Echinid several specimens have been taken by the «Ingolf»-

Expedition on the following stations:
\

a { St. 73 (62° 58’ N. Lat. 23° 28’ W. L. 486 fathoms. 5°1 bottom temp. Bottom [?}). 1 specimen.
Y — 78 (60°377 — 27°52) — 7QQ9 — 4°r — Mud. ). 4o —
‘ — 81 (61°44 — 27° rr! — 485 — Say — ? ). 18 —
— 84 (62°58 — 25°24’ — 633 — 4°4 — e ). 15 —

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 12

go ; ECHINOIDEA. I.

St.go (64° 45’ N. Lat. 29° 06’ W. Ll. 568 fathoms. 4° bottom temp. Mud. ). 2 specimens.
97 O5t 28). ae GAINS gay 2 450M eee = = ) Ses
Further three specimens have been taken by Ryder (1888) on 553 fathoms in the Denmark Strait.

Thus this species also belongs to the rich archibenthal fauna of the northern Atlantic; it is
scarcely to be doubted that it is also found in other places than in the Denmark Strait and on the

ridge south of Iceland.

On the Fam. Echinometrade Gray and the Subfam. Triplechinide A. Agass.

It has been shown in the preceding, how little successful the previous attempts at a classifica-
tion of the Cidarids and Echinothurids have been. It is still worse with regard to the forms that are
to be treated here. In the former only the species and genera were confused; here not only the
species and genera, but also the families have been mingled to such a degree, that species which have
proved by a closer examination to belong to at least three different families, have been referred to
the same genus (S¢rongylocentrotus). The «family» Echinometride and the «subfamily» Zriplechinide
prove to be interwoven to such a degree, that it is impossible to treat each group separately. I have
examined almost all the genera and species referred to these groups, and have found the relation
between these numerous forms that all look rather uniform, to be widely different from what has
formerly been supposed — although these suppositions have otherwise been sufficiently different.

The earlier attempts at a classification of the forms belonging here, have been put together
by Lttken, to whose paper I shall only here refer'), Gray is the first author, who has tried to

arrange the genera into families; he establishes the following system):

Fam. Hipponoide. The ambulacral areas as broad as the interambulacral areas; the pores form
three separate series. — Amblypneustes, Boletia, Hipponoé, Holopneustes.

Fam. Kchinide. The ambulacral areas half as broad as the interambulacral areas; the pores form
ares of 3. A. With pores at the sutures. J/espilia, Microcyphus, Salmacits, Temnopleurus. B. With-
out pores at the sutures. Achinus, Psammechinus, Heliocidarts.

Fam. Kchinometradz. The ambulacral areas half as broad as the interambulacral areas; the pores
in arcs of 4 or more. A. Test round: Strongylocentrotus. B. Test oblong: Echtnometra, «Holo-
centronotus», Colobocentrotus.

In the following time repeated attempts have been made to improve the system, but none of

these attempts have been very successful. A short survey of these systems is given here.

Troschel (403. p. 297). (No genera are named.)
Fam. Echinidz. Pores trigeminate; mouth-slits insignificant; no ocular plate reaches the
periproct.
Fam. Tripneustide. Pores trigeminate, mouth-slits deeper than broad; two ocular plates

reach the periproct.

1) Bidrag til Kundskab om Echiniderne. Kobenhayn 1864. p. 84 f. (Vid. Medd. Naturh. Foren. Kbhyn. 1863.)
2) An arrangement of the families of Echinida, with descriptions of some new Genera and species. Proc. Zool. Soc.
1855- P- 35—39-

ECHINOIDEA. I. gt

Fam. Toxopneustide. Pores multigeminate; the test round or pentagonal.

Fam. Echinometrade. Pores multigeminate; the test elliptical.

Agassiz (Revision of Echini).

Fam. Echinometrada. Pores multigeminate — Colobocentrotus, Heterocentrotus, Echinometra,
Parasalenia, Stomopneustes, Strongylocentrotus (Subgen. Spherechinus, Pseudoboletia), Echino-
strephus.

Fam. Echinide. Pores trigeminate. (Subfam. Temnopleuride.)

Subfam. Triplechinida. Phymosoma, Hemipedina, Echinus, Toxopneustes, Hipponoé,
Evechinus.
Bell (40).
Fam. Echinide.
Group I. Test round. Echinine.
a) The ambulacral plates formed of three primary plates. Zchinws ete.
8) — -— -- — - four or more primary plates. Stromgylocen-
trotus etc.
Group II. The morphological axis obliquely to the longitudinal axis. Echinometrine.
— li. — _ — at right angles to the longitudinal axis. Heterocen-
trotine.
Pomel (324). (In this account of the system of Pomel the fossil genera are omitted).

Les Echinométriens. Colobocentrotus, Podophora, Heterocentrotus, Acrocladia, Echinometra,
Ellipsechinus, Parasalenta.

Les Héliocidariens. Strongylocentrotus, Toxocidarts (= Anthocidarts Ltk.), Loxechinus, Echino-
strephus, Stomopneustes, Helioctdarts (= Evechinus), Holopneustes.

Les Schizechiniens. Zoxopneustes (= Boletia), Pseudoboletia, Hipponoé, Spherechinus, Ana-
pesus (= Lytechinus Ag. Psilechinus Ltk., Schizechinus Pomel).

Les Psammechiniens. Lchinus, Psammechinus (miliarts ete.) Arbacina (forbestana).

Duncan (132).

Fam. Echinometride.

Subfam. Echinometrine. AHeterocentrotus, Colobocentrotus, Echinometra, Stomopneustes,
Parasalenia.
Subfam. Polyporine. Strongylocentrotus, Spherechinus, Echinostrephus, Pseudoboletia.

Fam. Echinide. Echinus (Subgen. Psammechinus), Toxopneustes, Boletia, Tripneustes (Subgen,
Lvechinus),

I. W. Gregory’).

Fam. Triplechinide. Zchinus, Psammechinus, Tripneustes (= Hipponoé), Toxopneustes, Boletia,
Lvechinus.

Fam. Strongylocentrotida. Strongylocentrotus, Spherechinus, Pseudoboletia.

Fam. Echinometride. Echinometra, Stomopneustes, Heterocentrotus, Colobocentrotus, Parasalenia.

1) Echinoidea, in «<A treatise on Zoology, edited by E. Ray Lankester». Part. III. Echinoderma. London. 1900.

i

92 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Lambert (238. a).
Fam. Echinometride.
Subfam. Echinine.
Tribus. Oligoporine. Tvriplechine, Schizechine.

= Polyporine. Spherechine, Heliocidarine, Acrocladine.

The characters, on which the systems hitherto established have chiefly been based, are: the
number of the pores, the breadth of the ambulacral areas, the slits and form of the test. Desor?) is
the first author, who uses the number of the pores as a principle of division, dividing the forms
belonging here into «Oligopori» and «Polypori». In this he is followed by all the later authors (even
if they do not use the expressions of «Oligopori» and «Polypori») with the exception of Pomel and
Bell. In the essay on the Echinometrids quoted above, Bell has given a thorough criticism of this
feature, and has shown that it is by no means a natural principle of division, in spite of the assertion
of Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 423) that «this division, although it appears a numerical one, is yet one
of great physiological importance, as the mode of growth of the poriferous zone in these two families
is totally unlike». I must assert, still more strongly than has been done by Bell, that this division
is a quite numerical one, not at all corresponding to the natural relation of the forms. Moreover it
cannot be carried through at all, some species having on the lower ambulacral plates (i.e. as young
individuals) trigeminate pores, on the others multigeminate ones. Besides the instances mentioned by
Bell: &chinostrephus, Strongylocentr. drobachiensis, Echinometra macrostoma and other LEchinometra-
species, I can name «Strongylocentrotus» albus and lividus that have also only three pairs of pores in
the lower ambulacral plates. Also in young Spherechinus granularis trigeminate pores may be found
in the lower plates, and this feature, I think, may be taken to be found in all polypore forms. When
Bell, in his group of Zchimine, uses the number of the pores as a base of further subdivision, I can-
not agree with him; so much importance is not due to this feature, it can by no means be regarded
as more than a generic character, and I should not wonder, if in some cases it should prove to be no
more than a specific character. At all events the number of the pores has only slight importance
or none at all with regard to the natural grouping of the genera; Pomel seems to be the only author,
who has hitherto seen this fact.

The breadth of the ambulacral areas is used by Gray as a distinguishing character. That it
is especially unfortunate is shown by the result, as Gray thereby is brought to the uniting of Amddy-
pneustes, Holopneustes, Boletia, and FHipponoé into one family, what is absolutely wrong; neither has
any author followed him in this respect.

The slits of the test are used by Pomel and Troschel, by the latter, however, only as a sub-
ordinate character, the number of the pores being used as the first principle of division, so that only
the forms with trigeminate pores are referred to his family Z7ipueustide, while Spherechinus and
Pseudoboletia are referred to the family Zoxopneustide. — Agassiz says of the deep slits of the test
in Spherechinus (Rev. of Ech. p. 451): «the presence of deep, sharp cuts in the actinal system ... are

simply quantitative characters, the value of which a better acquaintance with the subject will deter-

1) Synopsis des Echinides fossiles. 1855.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 93

mine». The better acquaintance, however, does not grant that Agassiz is right, on the contrary we
find that we have here an especially important systematic character. All the genera with deep slits
of the test agree also in other respects, as will be shown hereafter, and form a separate, distinctly
limited group (that is to say in such a way that not all the forms belonging to this group have deep
slits of the test, but that all forms with deep slits of the test belong to this group; for in some small
forms no doubt belonging here, the slits of the test are not very large). The group of «Les
Schizechiniens» of Pomel is completely correct — the only correct thing in all the systems
hitherto given.

The form of the test plays a very great part in the previous systems; that all oblong forms
belong to the Echinometridz is considered as a matter of course. Even by Agassiz, who character-
izes the family Achinometride as «having always more than three pairs of pores to each arc», Para-
salentia is referred here, although it has only three pairs of pores in each arc; but it is oblong, and
accordingly it must be an Echinometrid! That the obliquity, however, is a character insufficient for
being the base of a family Echinometride, has been justly emphasized by Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 436).
In Stomopneustes there is in large individuals an indication of obliquity, and «there are in Echino-
metra, in one and the same species, specimens in which the elongation of the axis cannot be traced».
— Already Stewart (381) has called attention to the fact that Perasalenia is distinguished from the
Echinometride, «to which family most would, I should think, refer Parasalenia», in the structure of
the spines and the pedicellaria. According to my examinations that quite corroborate the observa-
tions of Stewart, there can be no question of referring Parasalenia to the Echinometrids. And so
the obliquity of the test must be dropped as a reliable character; not every oblique Echinid can before-
hand be taken to be an Echinometrid. That the obliquity is not the same, the morphological axis
not being in the same proportion to the longitudinal axis in all the oblique forms, has been shown
by Joh. Miiller*), and again emphasized by Bell (op. cit.), who according to this fact distinguishes
between Echinometrine and Heterocentrotine.

As consequently none of the characters hitherto used, with the only exception of the slits of
the test, have any greater systematic importance, we must seek other characters, by means of which
we can set this chaos right. The characters, of which there can be any question, are the following:
the structure of the test, the apical area, the spines, the gills, the buccal membrane, the inner ana-
tomical structures, especially the dental apparatus and the auricule, the sphzeridiz, the spicules, and
the pedicellarize.

The structure of the test cannot be expected to yield more important characters; if such were
to be found they would no doubt have been found long ago, as the attention has hitherto almost
exclusively been directed to the form of the test, the arrangement of the tubercles etc. in the descrip-
tions. The systematic attempts mentioned above, show to a sufficient degree of how little value the
characters found here are. One feature of not quite small importance is found, however, which seems
to have been quite overlooked by almost all later authors, viz. that in several forms only every other
ambulacral plate has a primary tubercle, while in others every ambulacral plate is provided with such
a one. Only in Liitken (op.cit. p.87) I have found a remark «that it is not always the case that

1) Uber den Bau der Echinodermen. Abh. d. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss. 1853. p. 128.

94 ECHINOIDEA. I.

every (ambulacral) plate has its primary tubercle well developed». He has not, however, used this
feature as a systematic character. On the other hand Ditben & Koren’) and G. O. Sars?) have
carefully noted this fact in their descriptions, and Koehler (233.a) has recently given prominence to
this feature in his description of Sverechinus antarcticus.

The apical area, no doubt, shows some difference: sometimes all the ocular plates are shut off
from the periproct, sometimes one or more reach to it. That no greater importance can be attached
to this feature is a sure fact, which may be seen with especial clearness from a case as that of S¢er-
echinus antarcticus (= Ech. margaritaceus), where in young individuals all the ocular plates are shut
off from the periproct, while in the adult they reach, all of them, to it (Koehler, 233. a).

The structure of the spines does not seem to yield very good systematic characters. Mackin-
tosh (265) has given numerous excellent figures of transverse sections of spines from a great number
of species. But I do not think that he has found so great and reliable differences in this feature, that
it can be used as a criterion of a nearer or farther relation between the separate forms. Especially
I think that a greater variation in the structure of the spines of the same species may be found, than
is to be seen from the work quoted. Also the secondary spines of the different species may deserve
a nearer examination. Hesse (195.a) has recently made thorough studies of the structure of Echinid-
spines, especially the fossil ones. He arrives at the result, «dass fast jede der einzelnen Familien der
Echinoideen ihren eigenen mikrostrukturellen Stacheltypus besitzt, und dass die histologischen Ver-
haltnisse der Stacheln ein wichtiges systematisches Kennzeichen ftir die Familien und in gewissen
Ziigen yon secundarer Werthigkeit oft sogar ftir die Gattungen, ja fiir einzelne Arten der Seeigel
liefern» (p. 204). He establishes 6 types: Czdaris, Echinus, Diadema, Clypeaster, Scutellide, and Spa-
tangus, and if we take the families to be of a corresponding extent, the spines may be seen to yield
family»-characters. The type of Zchzmws comprises both Temnopleurids, Echinometrids, and Echinids
s. str. He divides them into two parts, a) with the radial septa not perforated, b) with the radial septa
perforated. To the first division belongs among others 7oxopneustes pileolus, to the second //ipponoé
esculenta — two forms that are no doubt very nearly related. Such things prove how little value is
to be ascribed to this character. Upon the whole it must be said that the structures mentioned by
Hesse will scarcely be of any great importance with regard to the recent Echinids; with regard to
the fossil ones, on the other hand, they will, no doubt, be of some importance, as we may always from
the structure get some instruction with regard to the correct referring of the animal or the single
spine, even if it will only in rare cases be possible to get at the genus or the species. — Rothpletz
(346. p. 289) says of «Radioli cancellati» (corresponding to the «polycyclic acanthosphenote» spines of
Mackintosh): «Nach Agassiz ware dieser letzte Typus auf die Familie der Echinometrade beschrankt,
wahrend der zweite Typus (Rad. radiati) allen tibrigen Familien mit Ausnahme der Cidariden und
Saleniden zukaéme». As far as I can see Agassiz has said no such thing; in Rev. of Echini (p. 654)

he says: «In the Achinometrade we find the concentric rings most distinctly developed»; but that is

1) Skandinaviens Echinodermer. Vet. Akad. Handl. 1844.
2) Nye Echinodermer fra den norske Kyst. Vidensk. Selsk. Forhandl. 1871. p. 23 (in the description of Ech. depressus
= norvegicus).

ECHINOIDEA, I. 95

not the same as what Rothpletz has made of it. At all events Hesse is right, when he says that
the «cancellate» structure is only «compliciertere Wachsthumserscheinungen an Stacheln seines zweiten
Bauplanes, so dass die Stacheln ein und derselben Species, z. B. von Strongylocentrotus albus Ag.....
je nach dem Stadium ihrer Verdickung theils zu den Radiaten, theils zu den Cancellaten zu rechnen
sein wiirden» (op. cit. p. 192). — To judge by what has hitherto been brought to light, we may scarcely
expect to find features of any greater systematic importance in the structure of the spines with regard
to the forms treated of here.

The gills will scarcely present peculiarities that may be used as systematic characters of
greater importance. They generally contain some irregular spicules and fenestrated plates, which are
in the lower part rather large and pass evenly into the plates of the buccal membrane; towards the
ends of the branches they become smaller and more irregular, at last only branched calcareous needles.
Common bihamate spicules are most frequently found together with these, sometimes in very great
numbers (Psewdoboletia). Heterocentrotus and Colobocentrotus are distinguished by having pedicellariz
on the gills (placed on the larger fenestrated plates). In Sfomopneustes only small three-radiate spicules
are found in the gills (Pl. XVII. Fig. 13). — The spheeridize are very similar; their shape, number, or
position can in no way be used as distinguishing characters between species, genera, or greater groups
within this division of the Echinids.

The buccal membrane may be covered with plates, or naked, and this feature has played no
small part in the classification, and will also persistently be of importance. It is, however, to be
observed that it cannot always be seen directly whether plates are found in the buccal membrane or
not. Often it looks quite smooth and naked — as for instance in Lchinus acutus — but if a piece of
it is cleared in potash or Canada balsam, it is seen to be quite full of larger or smaller, simple fenes-
trated plates; only when these plates carry pedicellariz they become more complicate, and may then
be seen on the dried skin. Thus a microscopic examination is necessary in order to ascertain whether
plates are found in the buccal membrane or not. Most frequently among the fenestrated plates more
or fewer spicules of the common bihamate form are found. The part inside of the buccal plates gene-
rally contains numerous smaller fenestrated plates, arranged more or less radially; these plates are
upon the whole more simply constructed than those outside the buccal plates. In several species the
buccal membrane is almost or quite naked (with the exception of the buccal plates), for instance
Echinus magellanicus, albocinctus, Robillard’. In some species small spines are found on the buccal
plates (for instance Ech. esculentus), and in Pseudoboletia, Heterocentrotus, and Colobocentrotus spines are
even found in the plates of the buccal membrane outside the buccal plates.

The inner anatomical structures are especially little known in the different genera, with the
exception of the dental apparatus and auricule. These, however, show a so similar structure, that
important differences that might be of systematic significance, are scarcely to be found, and as to the
other anatomical features, it is still more improbable that here should be found differences of any
importance — apart from the fact that it would be very unpractical, if the inner anatomy was to be
much used in the classification. Thus we have only left spicules and pedicellariae — but here we also

find what we want.

96 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Perrier’) and Stewart?) have given informations of the spicules in several genera and species,
and especially Stewart thinks that «they will be found to afford most valuable and interesting addi-
tional points of generic and specific distinction». I must think it very improbable that good specific
characters should be found in the form of the spicules; as far as my examinations reach they are very
similar in all the species belonging to the same genus. On the other hand I quite agree with Ste-
wart that the spicules yield valuable generic characters, and even excellent family characters. — The
most common type is the simple, c-shaped, «bihamate» form; it is found in Achimus and Echinometra
and the genera more nearly allied to these. In Strongylocentrotus drobachtensis and some other Stron-
gylocentrotus-species the form is the same, only that here the spicules are a little branched in the
ends (Pl. XX. Fig. 12). A very peculiar form of spicules is found in Zoxopneustes, Pseudoboletia,
Spherechinus, and upon the whole in the forms with deep mouth-slits. They are dumb-bell-shaped,
as two small balls connected by a short bar (PI. XXI. Fig. 28etc.). In SAherechimus they resemble
more the common bihamate spicules, but they are not at all pointed at the ends. Also a few typical
bihamate spicules may be found among the others; this is also the case in Strongylocentrotus. Some-
times all possible stages of development of these spicules may be found, from a little ball to the form
of the dumb-bell, and farther to the bihamate form (Pl. XXI. Fig. 31). That these forms are really
developmental stages can, I think, scarcely be doubted. It is evident that a considerable rearrange-
ment of the mass of lime must take place; but a similar resorption and new deposition of the lime is
already known from Théels examinations of the resorption of the larval skeleton in the Echinoderms’).
The form of spicules mentioned here is an excellent character of the family Zoxopneustide (see below).
Another peculiar form of spicules is found in Parasalenia and Anthocidaris; they are arcuate, with
I—2 small projections in the middle (Pl. XXI. Figs. 30, 32). Stewart calls this form of spicules «bia-
cerate». Also common bihamate spicules are found together with these, but in small numbers. A
quite unique form of spicules is found in Stomopneustes; they are of two kinds: smaller, irregular
fenestrated plates, and large, thorny, perforated tubes that may be a little branched (Stewart. Op. cit.
Pia) Eisen):

The spicules are especially found in the tube feet, but also in the skin round the pedicellariz
(especially the globiferous ones), both on the stalk, the neck, and the head, and round the base of the
spines they occur frequently. In the gills and the buccal membrane bihamate spicules are often found
together with the more or less irregular fenestrated plates that are commonly found here. Also the
inner organs are often richly provided with spicules that may be of a very irregular form, as has
been shown by Stewart with regard to Echinometra. This, however, is of no practical importance
in the classification where regard must chiefly be paid to the regular spicules of constant form in
tube feet and pedicellariz.

With regard to the pedicellarize we have some good informations, especially in the works by
Perrier and Agassiz. From these informations it is evident that an abundance of peculiar struc-

tures may be found here which are, no doubt, of great systematic importance. Thus Perrier has

1) Recherches sur les Pedicellaires et les Ambulacres des Astéries et des Oursins. Ann. Sc. nat. 5. Série. Zool.
T. XII—XIII. 1869—70.

2) On the Spicula of the Regular Echinoidea. Trans. Linn. Soc. XXV. 1865.

3) Notes on the formation and absorption of the skeleton in Echinoderms. Ofvers. Kgl. Vet Akad. Foérh. 1894.

ECHINOIDEA. 1. 97

rightly mentioned as a character of the Echinometrids that the globiferous pedicellarize «se termine(nt)
par deux crochets, mais ces deux crochets naissent 4 des hauteurs différentes, quoique assez rapprochés
du sommet du Pédicellaire>. Even if Perrier has not understood this feature quite correctly, his
figures are sufficiently clear and good. Accordingly no excuse can be found for the later authors,
when they have overlooked this excellent character and in stead of it have stuck to the useless ones:
the number of the pores and the form of the test. If they had made use of this character, they might
have avoided the many systematical errors they have now fallen into. Beyond the peculiarity of the
globiferous pedicellariz of the Echinometrids emphasized by Perrier, no attempts, as far as I know,
have been made to find other characters in the structure of the pedicellariz that might be used for a
limitation of larger or smaller groups inside this difficult division of the Echinids. The reason why
no such characters have hitherto been found, is partly that far too few genera and species have been
examined, partly that the examinations have not been made with sufficient exactness. My examina-
tions have shown that in the structure of the pedicellarize such peculiarities are found as yield excel-
lent characters, by which the genera may be grouped.

In «Echinus» miliaris and some other species the blade of the globiferous pedicellarie is
provided with a larger or smaller number of teeth on either side; the edge is not thickened, but thin
and sharp, and continues directly into the teeth; there are no cross-beams connecting the edges across
the inside of the blade (Pl. XVII. Figs. 1, 7). In Achinus esculentus a.o. the edges are connected by
cross-beams across the inside of the blade; they may be few and narrow, or so strongly developed,
that the inside of the blade is almost quite covered with the exception of a series of larger or smaller
holes along the median line. One or more pairs of lateral teeth are found placed on the thickened
edge, but they do not form a direct continuation of it as in the preceding form (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 2, 3,
ete). — In “chinometra and the forms allied to it, as already mentioned, only one large lateral tooth
is found on one side (Pl. XIX. Figs. 4, 13), and in Strongylocentrotus, Spherechinus etc. no lateral teeth
are found at all (Pl. XX. Figs. 14, 16, 26, etc), only a little obliquity near the point shows that this
form must be regarded as a further development of the pedicellaria that is provided with one unpaired
lateral tooth, — not so much the strongly modified form in “chzmometra as the less modified form in
«Lich.» albocinctus. Besides these differences in the structure of the valves, also a few peculiarities in
the structure of the stalk and in the neck are to be noted. In most genera the stalk consists of
numerous long calcareous threads connected with each other by a few cross-beams; in some forms,
Strongylocentrotus drobachiensts and its nearest relations, it is a thin perforated tube. In most forms
the neck is quite short, or, more strictly speaking, quite wanting, in a few ones — also the Strong.
drobachiensis-group — there is a long neck provided with powerful longitudinal and circular muscles
(Pl. XX. Figs. 25, 20).

The other pedicellarie seem only to contribute little to the limitation of the genera, still less
to the characterization of the larger groups; on the other hand the tridentate and ophicephalous pedi-
cellariz yield often excellent specific characters. The triphyllous pedicellariz are exceedingly similar,
and yield scarcely any sufficiently certain systematic character, with one exception: Evechinus chloro-
ticus; in this latter some digitate prolongations pass from the upper end of the apophysis over the

blade (Pl. XIX. Fig. 29), a quite unique feature. As a common feature may be noted that the edge is

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 13

98 ECHINOIDEA. I.

not serrate, and that the apophysis does not widen to a cover-plate, contrary to the triphyllous pedi-
cellarize of the Echinothurids. All four kinds of pedicellarize are certainly found in every species; but
of some species individuals may often be found, where globiferous or tridentate pedicellarize (sometimes
both forms) are quite wanting or very few in number (for instance Achinus Alexandri). This fact,
of course, is an unfortunate circumstance, but the value of the pedicellarie as systematic characters
are not otherwise lessened by it.

If we now examine the genera and species referred to «Zriplechinide» and «Echinometrade:
with special regard to the features described above, we shall get a view of their relations very different
from the views expressed in the above mentioned systems.

The genus chins is notorious for its difficulty. A great many species have been described,
but most frequently the descriptions are insufficient, so that the species cannot be recognized by them.
One species, “ch. acutus, is very varying, and has occasioned the establishing of a great many
«species», which nobody has been able to recognize with certainty, and by which the confusion has
only been increased. But even excellently characterized species, as for instance £. e/egans, have often
been confounded with other species, what I have repeatedly been able to substantiate; what is hitherto
stated with regard to the distribution of the Achzmus-species, must accordingly be used with great
caution. The reason of all these difficulties is almost exclusively to be found in the literature: an
exact examination of the animals themselves shows that the species upon the whole have rather
distinct characters.

The following species are referred to the genus Echinus: miliarts Miill., microtuberculatus Blv.,
angulosus (Leske), escaulentus 1, acutus Lamk., norvegicus Ditb. Kor. lemingti Forb., microstoma Wyv.
Thoms., melo Lamk., elegans Dub. Kor. gracilis Ag, Wallist Ag. luctdus Déderl., Robillard: L,oriol,
darnleyensis Woods, magellanicus Phil., margaritaceus Lamk., horridus Ag. Alexandri Dan. Kor., albo-
cinctus Hutton, diadema Studer, Neuwmayert Meissner, mdlticolor Yoshiwara. A great many older names
are cited as synonyms to several of these species in Agassiz’s «Revision of Echini>; a renewed exami-
nation of the type specimens of these «species» with especial regard to the pedicellarie might perhaps
give other results than those of Agassiz; but until such examinations have been made, we must build
on the results laid down in «Rev. of Ech.». Of all the above mentioned species, with the exception
of Ech. multicolor, 1 have had occasion to examine authentic specimens, of Ech. horridus, Neumayer,
and Alexandri even the type specimens. The result is a considerable reduction of the number of
species in the genus Achinus, some of the mentioned species being dropped as synonyms, some prov-
ing to belong to other genera.

As the type of the genus Echinus LE. esculentus must be put down, the only one of the species
established by Linné. Of its characters the following ones must be mentioned here. Only every
other ambulacral plate carries a primary tubercle (in large specimens often 2—3 plates without primary
tubercle follow each other). All the ocular plates are shut off from the anal area. The buccal mem-
brane with numerous small and larger plates; spines on the buccal plates. The globiferous pedicellarice
without neck, the blade with a lateral tooth on either side, the edges connected across the inside.

The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 20) long, narrow, the edge set with numerous small teeth

ECHINOIDEA. 1. 99

arranged in transverse series. The stalk of the pedicellarize consists of long calcareous threads con-
nected by few cross-beams. Spicules bihamate.

With this species must be classed Ach. melo and acutus (under which £. Flemingti, norvegicus,
and microstoma are to be named as synonyms, the reasons of which will be given hereafter in the
description of Ech. acutws). They are distinguished from 2. esculentus by having fewer and longer
spines, by wanting spines on the buccal plates, and by the plates in the buccal membrane being fine
and quite imbedded in the skin, so that it looks as if the buccal membrane were naked. Further
primary tubercles are also here generally wanting in more or fewer interambulacral plates besides in
every other ambulacral plate. The difference between melo and acutus is very slight, they seem only
to be differing in form and colour — perhaps they cannot upon the whole be kept as distinct species
(for particulars see under the description of Ach. acutws). The pedicellarize and spicules essentially as
in £ch. esculentus.

Ech. elegans. «It seems almost hopeless to attempt to distinguish the species of Hchimus known
as £. elegans, E. norvegicus, E. melo, and E. Flemingit», Agassiz says («Blake» Echini. p. 39), and also
Wyv. Thomson classes Ach. elegans among the «critical species » (395. p- 744). In this statement I
cannot at all agree with the two celebrated authors. ch. elegans is very different from Ach. acadlus;
the question might rather be of referring it to another genus than of confounding it with #ch. acutus.
The most essential difference is that it has a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The
globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 2—3) have generally two lateral teeth on either side, the tri-
dentate ones are somewhat shorter and broader than in the preceding species, but the edge is also
here set with transverse series of small teeth. In some specimens only quite small tridentate pedicel-
larize occur of a somewhat other form than the large ones (Pl. XX. Figs. g, 19), but in other specimens
both the small and the large form as well as all transitional sizes are found. Apical area, buccal
membrane, and spicules as in Ech. esculentus. — The difference here stated between Lch. elegans and
acutus is already seen from the description of Diiben & Koren‘), where it is said that «de primara
knélarne bilda paa skalet, fran anus till munnen, 20 ytterst tydliga, aldrig afbrutna rader», while it is
said of Ech. Flemingit (p.267): «de 10 rader primara kndlar, som upptaga ambulacralplatarne, aro esom-
oftast afbrutna»; this feature is also emphasized by the authors under Ech. norvegicus. To be sure it
is not clearly seen in the Latin diagnoses, so that it is perhaps on account of the language that this
feature has been overlooked by the later authors?) to great injury for the correctness of the determina-

tions; especially Ech. elegans may often have been confounded with quite red specimens of &ch.

NOVUELICUS.
Ech. Wallisi Ag. In the description of this species («Blake»-Echini. p. 39) it is said that it is
readily distinguished .... by the arrangement of the pairs of pores in sets of two». If this be correct

it can scarcely be an Echinus, in which genus the pores are always trigeminate; Agassiz himself,
however, thinks that it is «closely allied to, if not identical with, Echinws Alexandri>, in which the

pores are arranged in the common way. Agassiz further thinks it to be «allied to £&. Flemingt and

1) Skandinaviens Echinodermer. p. 273.
2) Thus in Bell’s «Catalogue of British Echinoderms» it is said of Ack, actus: «each of these (the compound Ambu-

lacra plates) has a large primary tubercle set about the middle of each plate». p. 146.

T3e

100 ECHINOIDEA. I.

F. elegans», according to what has been stated above it cannot be closely allied to both these species,
and no inference can be drawn from the quite insufficient description that is not even accompanied
by figures. From U.S. National Museum I have received a specimen on loan, determined as Ech.
Wallst. It is a large, fine specimen of Ach. elegans (only with somewhat shorter spines and higher
than the typical form); but it is unfortunately not certain that it is really identical with Ach. Wadllisi,
as it does not agree very well with the description, except in the colour. Thus &ch. Wadlisi must for
the present remain somewhat problematic.

Most nearly related to Echinus elegans are the species: gracilis, Alexandrit, and lucidus, and
the new species described here: ch. affinis n.sp. and atlanticus n. sp.; they have ali of them a
primary tubercle on every ambulacral plate; numerous fenestrated plates imbedded in the buccal mem-
brane (this feature, however, not observed in /. dzczdus); no ocular plates reach to the periproct; the
spicules bihamate; all with rather strong, long, and pointed spines. Ech. Alexandri is rather sharply
distinguished from the other species by its tridentate pedicellariz, which are especially broad and
comparatively short (Pl. XX. Fig. 1), while in the other species they are long and narrow (Pl. XVIII.
Fig. 4). In the smaller forms of tridentate pedicellarize the blade is more flat and broad, and the upper
end of the apophysis is a little widened as a more or less perforated plate; in the larger forms there
is some mesh-work in the bottom of the blade. As in £. elegans there are in these species all transi-
tions between the largest and smallest tridentate pedicellarie; to be sure, I have only seen a few of
smaller size in Ach. luctdus, but as these resemble to a high degree, those of a corresponding size in
the other species it may be supposed that also in this species large tridentate pedicellariz will be
found of the same form as in the other mentioned species. In all these species the tridentate pedicel-
lariz are upon the whole so similar, that reliable specific characters can scarcely be found in them

(Pl. XVIII. Figs. 15, 2122, 26—28). The globiferous pedicellariz in Ech. Alexandri have generally

3—4 teeth on either side, in the other species there are most frequently 1—1 or 1—2 lateral teeth.
Also the globiferous pedicellaria are very similar in all these species (Pl. XVIII. Figs. q—11, 16—18,
Pl. XIX. Fig. 18).

Ech. affints is distinguished from the other species by the peculiar feature that the two series
of tubercles in each ambulacral area are of unequal size or quite irregular; there is, however, always
a primary tubercle on every ambulacral plate (see the particular description below). Zch. gracilis is
easily distinguished from the other related species by its beautiful green coloration; the tridentate
pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 15, 21) are a little more serrate below than in the other species, it is
however, scarcely a reliable character. Agassiz, in his description of it (Rev. of Ech. p. 293), says: «this
species holds an intermediate position between 4. /lemingw Ball and £. melo Lamk., to both of which
it is allied». This, according to what is stated here, is incorrect; its nearest relations are £. elegans
and the other species named here. — Ech. lductdus, of which species Prof. Déderlein has kindly lent
me a specimen for examination, is most similar to Ech. Alexandri, but may easily be distinguished
from this species by its tridentate and globiferous pedicellarize (Pl. XIX. Fig. 18).

In Challenger-Echinoidea (p. 114) Agassiz mentions Echinus acutus from st. 343, off Ascension,
425 fathoms. I have had occasion to examine these specimens in British Museum, and I must

positively assert that it is not Ach. acutus. The test is high; the peristome very small (15™™ in a

ECHINOIDEA. I. 101
specimen of a diameter of 65™™), the edge of the mouth not bent inward. There are very few spines
on the abactinal side, almost only the primary ones, and as the plates are very high, the primary
spines are also widely separated; on the actinal side there are more secondary spines, they are not,
however, very close-set. The primary spines are of a middle length, and do not decrease much in
length towards the apical area. A primary spine is found on each ambulacral plate, and they are of
equal size in both series. The buccal membrane with numerous, lengthy, simple fenestrated plates
outside the buccal plates; inside of these they are small and a little less perforated, as in /. Alexandr.
The colour is beautifully red, the point of the spines white. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII.
Fig. 17), which are very few in number, have 1—1 lateral tooth, but are otherwise similar to those of
Ech, affinis; also the tridentate pedicellaricze are scarcely to be distinguished from those of -. a/finzs.
On the other hand the ophicephalous pedicellarize are very characteristic, lengthy, and the teeth in
the edge are uncommonly fine, only to be seen under especially high magnifying powers (Pl. XIX.
Fig. 37). Triphyllous pedicellarice of the common form; spicules bihamate. — There can be no doubt
that this is a new species of Echinus, closely allied to £. elegans, gracilis etc.; I propose to call it Echinus

_ atlanticus.

Presumably there are among the Echinids obtained by the «Challenger»-Expedition still one
or two species allied to those mentioned here. Agassiz has determined these specimens partly as Ech.
elegans (from Tristan d’Acunha), partly as Ech. norvegicus (from Patagonia, st. 308, and Japan, st. 232).
That these determinations are incorrect is a sure fact. «Ech. elegans» from Tristan d’Acunha is a large
form, very similar to Ech. Alexandri, that is to say, to the most long-spined specimens of this species
(see the description below), but its tridentate pedicellaria are narrow as in Ech. affinis. «Ech. nor-
vegicus» from Japan is absolutely not this species; as far as I am able to see from my notes, it
must be Ech. luctdus; the pedicellariz are quite agreeing with those of that species. The speci-
mens from Patagonia, at all events, are not Ech. norvegicus; they belong to two different species, of
which one (3 large specimens) belongs to this group of species with a primary tubercle on all the
ambulacral plates; perhaps it is Ech. affinis, but I am not able to determine it with certainty after my
notes. The other species (4 small specimens) is Zch. magellanicus Phil. — The incorrect referring of
these specimens to Ech. norvegicus has unfortunately given rise to the fact that this species is now
constantly named among the «bipolar» animals.

Ech. margaritaceus Lamk. Of this species it is justly said in «Rev. of Ech.» (p. 493) that it has
«very marked features», but in the description only one of its peculiarities is mentioned, viz. the nature
of its covering with spines; «the plate is densely covered with minute secondary tubercles carrying
short, slender, yellowish spines closely crowded together, which are a lower groundwork from which
the primary spines, long, slender, and white, project prominently». This description of the spines is
excellent, it is only to be added that these spinules are richly set with fine thorns, which gives them
a peculiar silky gloss; further that the primary spines round the mouth are curved in the point, and
that generally, but not always, some small, club-shaped spines are found on the buccal plates. Only
every other ambulacral plate carries a primary tubercle. The apical area is very peculiar, all the
ocular plates reach to the periproct, which is large and covered by numerous small plates among

which the central plate is especially distinct. In small specimens all the ocular plates are shut off

102 ECHINOIDEA. I.

from the periproct. The buccal membrane has inside of the buccal plates numerous small fenes-
trated plates imbedded in the skin; just outside of the buccal plates there are a few small plates, as
thick and complicate as the buccal plates, and like these set with pedicellariz. Nearest to these
plates some small, fine fenestrated plates are found, but all the rest of the buccal membrane is quite
naked. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 20) are of the same form as in ch. elegans etc.,
but only one tooth is found on either side. The tridentate pedicellarize are more peculiar and of a
rather varying form (Pl. XIX. Figs. 3, 33). The blade is broad and deep, without or with a quite feeble
net of meshes at the bottom; the edge is more or less sinuate in the part where the valves join:
sometimes almost through the whole length (Fig. 3), sometimes only in the outer half (Fig. 33); it is
finely serrate, but not thickened, and has no transverse series of teeth as in the Achznws-species men-
tioned above. The «huge pedicellarize.... covering the whole test», mentioned by Agassiz, are the
globiferous pedicellaria, which are rather long-stalked and conspicuous, not the tridentate ones. The
ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize of the common form; it may, however be noted that in the
latter the upper ends of the apophysis do not reach to the edge of the blade, and that there seems
to be a tending to a formation of a little mesh-work in the blade. The stalks of the pedicellarize of
the common structure; the spicules bihamate, very numerous. — That this species is not «most closely
allied» to Ech. norvegicus, as Agassiz thinks (14. p.11) is clearly shown by the characters here
mentioned.

The description of Ach. margaritaceus given here agrees remarkably well with the description of
Sterechinus antarticus by Koehler (233.a.), and after having examined some specimens from «Belgica
which Prof. E.van Beneden has most kindly lent me, I must positively assert that it is Ech. marga-
rvitaceus; no single character can be pointed out that might be a mark of distinction between them. —
Echinus diadema Studer is by Agassiz (Chall. Ech.) Bernard (79), and Meissner (285) thought to
be synonymous with Ech. margaritaceus. Studer (386) admits, to be sure, that they are very similar,
but thinks that some difference is found in the pedicellarize — i.e. the ophicephalous ones. Now it
is true that his figures show a slight difference; but the ophicephalous pedicellariz are generally of
very little importance with regard to the distinguishing between the species, and yield only quite
exceptionally good specific characters (as in Ech. atlanticus). In this case there can be no question of
distinguishing between the two «species», either by the ophicephalous or the other pedicellariz. After
having examined some specimens, determined by Studer himself as Ach. diadema, which I have
received for examination from the museum at Berlin, I must decidedly follow the mentioned authors;
Lich. diadema cannot be distinguished from ch. margaritaceus.

Echinus horridus A. Ag. is not closely allied to Ech. norvegicus, as stated by Agassiz (Chall.
Ech. p.116); its nearest relation is no doubt Zech. margaritaceus. The spines are quite as in this
species, and also the pedicellarize are very similar to those of the latter species. The tridentate
pedicellarize (Pl. XIX. Fig. 2) are rather much open and rather sinuate in the outer part, where the
valves meet; they may become pretty large (a little more than 1™™), and then they have a rather
strong, coarse net of meshes in the blade (it may be described as cross-beams rather far from the
bottom). In the globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 22) cross-beams are wanting between the edges

of the blade (also in young Ech. margaritaceus they may be found without cross-beams), and there are

ECHINOIDEA. |. 103

2—4 teeth on either side. The basal part has somewhat projecting outer corners. The ophicephalous
pedicellarize are of the common form, the triphyllous ones resemble those of Ech. margaritaceus.
Agassiz says, but wrongly, that only two kinds of pedicellarize are found in this species, «one small-
headed, long-stemmed, the other short-stemmed with a conical head». He gives, however, no figures
of them. Unfortunately I can give no informations as to the peristome, as I forgot to examine it
during my stay at British Museum. Neither can I tell whether the actinal primary spines are curved
at the point. Primary spines are found on all the ambulacral plates; all the ocular plates are shut
off from the periproct. The central plate little conspicuous. The spicules bihamate, numerous.

Echinus Neumayeri Meissner is also to be classed with these species, but is, however, rather
sharply distinguished by several characters. In the description by Meissner (285) only the apical area
is more thoroughly examined; as the type specimen has been sent me for closer examination, I am
able to call attention to several other characteristic features of this species. A primary tubercle is only
found in every other ambulacral plate. Unfortunately all the primary spines are broken, so that
nothing can be said as to their length, or whether the actinal ones are curved at the point — what
is probable. The secondary spines are rather coarse, not fine, silky, as in the two preceding species;
they are, however, finely serrate. Three of the ocular plates reach to the periproct, as observed by
Meissner; no conspicuous central plate is found. The apical area of the type specimen is, no doubt,
abnormal, two of the genital plates being coalesced, and the adjoining one uncommonly broad; by this
arrangement the two ocular plates at these genital plates are situated opposite to the latter, and not,
as is elsewhere the case, opposite to the interspaces between them. (See the figure of Meissner.
Op. cit. p. 12). The buccal membrane contains numerous small fenestrated plates inside of the buccal
plates, outside of these it is almost naked, only with quite few, small fenestrated plates. Spines are
found on the buccal plates. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 14) recall those of Ech. hor-
ridus very much, but the outer corners of the basal part are somewhat more conspicuous, and the
edges of the blade are connected by cross-beams; there are I—1 or 1—2 lateral teeth. The tridentate
pedicellariz (Pl. XX. Fig. 11) resemble those of Ech. margaritaceus, as is also the case with the triphyl-
lous ones (Pl. XX. Fig. 7); the ophicephalous ones of the common form. The spicules bihamate, very
few; I have only seen a few in the buccal membrane, none in the tube feet.

Echinus magellanicus Phil. To the descriptions of this species by Philippi and Agassiz the
following informations must be added. A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates; the
actinal primary spines are curved at the point, the secondary spines are coarse as in Ech. Newmayeri
and almost smooth. The buccal membrane is quite naked both inside and outside of the buccal plates,
and no spines seem to be found on these. The periproct is small, covered by a few, rather large plates,
without distinct central plate; generally one ocular plate reaches to the periproct, as observed by
Agassiz. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 23) chiefly as in Ech. margaritaceus, with 1—2
teeth on either side. The tridentate pedicellarice (Pl. XIX. Figs. 11, 17), which are (always?) very small,
o5™", are rather different from those of the other species; in the outer part where the valves join, the
edge is finely serrate, in the lower part it is smooth, but rather thick; no net of meshes at the
bottom. The valves are apart for a rather long space, but the slit between them is quite narrow.

The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellariz of the common form. The spicules bihamate, numerous.

104 ECHINOIDEA. I.

In «Challenger»-Echinoidea p. 116 Ech. magellanicus is mentioned from Prince Edward Island
and Crozet Islands, from the latter place at a depth of 1600 fathoms (st.147). I can assert positively
that the latter is not Ech. magellanicus; its globiferous pedicellarize are of quite another form than in
this species. I suppose it to be a new species allied to Ech. Newmayeri and the other species belong-
ing here, but as I have not a sufficient material of pedicellarize of it, nor sufficient notes of it, I must
restrict myself to show that it is no Ach. magellanicus. 1 also take it to be doubtful whether the
specimens from Prince Edward Island are Ech. magellanicus; at all events they will have to be exa-
mined more thoroughly with regard to the characters mentioned here. That this species is found at
Australia and New-Zealand I must also regard as doubtful, until renewed, thorough examinations have
confirmed these statements. To be sure, Farquhar (144) enumerates Ach. magellanicus among the
Echinids of New-Zealand, but it may, perhaps, be Ech. albocinctus, which, in a communication from Prof.
Hutton, is said to be the same species. That this statement is incorrect will be shown hereafter.
Perhaps also “ch. darnleyensis may be hidden among the Australian Echinids referred to Ech. magel-
lanicus, as has been supposed by Woods (442. p.165). For the present Ach. magellanicus is only
known with certainty from the coasts of Patagomia and the adjoining seas. — Some small specimens
from Chall. st. 308 (Patagonia), by Agassiz referred to Ech. norvegicus, are magellanicus.

Echinus albocinctus Hutton. A specimen of an “chinus-species from New-Zealand which from
earlier times is found in the museum of Copenhagen, must, no doubt, be referred to this species, as it
agrees exactly with the description. The description by Hutton, however, is far from being
exhaustive — what may be applied to almost all descriptions of Echinids — and so some informations
of this species are given here. — A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates; the actinal
spines are not curved at the point, the small spines rather thick, almost smooth. One of the ocular
plates reaches almost quite to the periproct which is small, and (as far as can be seen) covered by
few, rather large plates without central plate. The buccal membrane is quite naked, with the excep-
tion of the buccal plates; whether spines are found on these cannot be decided. The globiferous pedi-
cellarize (Pl. XIX. Fig. 19) have only one unpaired lateral tooth; the basal part is very varying in form,
sometimes with strongly projecting outer corners, sometimes rounded — or rounded on one side, pro-
jecting on the other. The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 25) are most similar to those of
kL. magellanicus, but the edge is a little serrate, not thick and smooth where the valves are open; in
the little space at the point where the valves meet, the edge is finely serrate. Below the articular
surface there is a peculiar arc reminding of that of the ophicephalous pedicellariz; also in other Echi-
nids an indication of such an are may be found. The ophicephalous and tridentate pedicellariz of the
common form. The spicules bihamate, they seem to be rather few. — That this species is well distin-
guished from Ach. magellanicus is evident from the informations given here. — Achinus elevatus Hutton,
according to an information received from Prof. Hutton, is synonymous with Amdlypneustes formosus.

Echinus fasciatus Parfitt (311), no doubt, is only a young specimen of one of the Echinids
occurring at the coasts of England, but to which of these it may belong, it is impossible to see from
the description — it may be applied to each and all of them, from Strongyloc. drobachiensis to Ech.

miliaris. Philippi (323) enumerates the species Echinus Cunninghamt, lepidus, and rodula without

ECHINOIDEA. I. 105

giving any information whatever of them; as far as I can see they are nomina nuda, and Philippi
deserves no praise for having introduced them.

Echinus multicolor Yoshiwara I have not seen; the description gives no information of pedi-
cellariz, spicules, and several other important features, so that nothing can be said with regard to its
being a genuine Lchznus or not.

The species Ech. miliarts, microtuberculatus, angulosus, verruculatus, Robillardi, and darnleyensts
are no genuine Achnws-species. For the present then they may be left out of consideration, while the
question of the grouping of the species above mentioned is treated.

Do all these species really belong to the same genus, or can there be any question of grouping
them into more genera? The question is partly answered already, Koehler having established the
genus Sterechinus on E. margaritaceus (without knowing, to be sure, that it was this species). The
characters upon which the genus is based, are: the comparatively large central plate, the narrow apical
plates, of which all the ocular plates reach to the periproct, and the comparatively great height of
the coronal plates. — The character of the apical plates is evidently useless, all the ocular plates being
shut off from the periproct in smaller specimens. Also the central plate seems to me to be an only
little valuable character; in every young Zchznus the central plate is distinct, it does not disappear till
a later stage, other small plates being formed round it, so that at last it cannot be distinguished from
the secondary plates. Neither seems the height of the coronal plates to be a valuable character, as it
varies much according to the size of the animal. — Now it is not my meaning to say that the genus
Sterechinus cannot be kept up, only that the characters upon which it is based, cannot be used; we
must seek other characters for it. May, then, other characters be found by which to group
the species?

Among the characters mentioned above one is found that might beforehand be thought to be
of great importance, viz. whether a primary tubercle is found on every or only on every other ambu-
lacral plate. In the species esculentus, acutus, melo, margaritaceus, aud Neumayer’ a primary tubercle
is only found on every other ambulacral plate, in all the other species it is found on every ambulacral
plate. That this feature, however, can be of no primary importance is evident from the fact that it
separates Ech. margaritaceus and horridus, two species that are, no doubt, very closely allied. — An-
other character of undoubtful value is whether the buccal membrane contains numerous fenestrated
plates, or is quite (or almost) naked, at all events outside of the buccal plates. Numerous plates in
the buccal membrane are found in the species: escelentus, acutus, melo, elegans, gracilis, Alexandri,
affinis, atlanticus, and luctdus (not examined); naked buccal membrane is found in the species: marga-
ritaceus, horridus (not examined), Newmayeri, magellanicus, and albocinctus. This character does not
separate allied species, but divides them into two groups which seem to be well divided as to habitus,
but where the species of each group seem to be mutually rather closely allied. It is evident then
that we have here a specially important systematic character. Another feature gives quite the same
grouping of the species, viz. whether the edge of the tridentate pedicellariz is thick and provided with
numerous small teeth arranged in more or less regular transverse series, or it is thin and simply ser-
rate. In the former group, Ech. esculentus etc. the edge is thick with transverse series of small teeth,

in the latter group, Ech. margaritaceus etc. it is simply serrate. This character, however, is not quite

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. r. 14

106 ECHINOIDEA. I.

reliable, as the small tridentate pedicellarize in the former group have also a simply serrate edge.
Other characters giving the same natural grouping of the species, do not seem to be found.

The former group may be subdivided according to the ambulacral plates, the species esculentus,
acutus, and melo having only a primary spine on every other ambulacral plate, while the species
elegans, gracilis, Alexandri, affinis, atlanticus, and lucidus have a primary spine on every ambulacral
plate. Thus this group might be subdivided into two genera according to this character. This divi-
sion, however, I do not think good; Zch. esculentus differs so much from acu/ws and melo, that it
seems to be incongruous to class it with these two species contrary to the other species of the group;
in quite young specimens of Zech. acutus a primary spine is often found on all the ambulacral plates,
which also tells against using this feature as a generic character. Finally it is also seen in the other
group that neither there a natural division can be obtained by means of this character. Thus it seems
to be correct to regard this whole group as one genus keeping the name of Achimus. The feature of
the ambulacral plates may here be used practically by the determination of the species.

The other group, the species margaritaceus, Neumayert, horridus, magellanicus, and albocinctus,
shows a series of striking peculiarities, so that the question naturally arises, whether all these species
are to be referred to one genus. The characters by which a subdivision might be made, are, whether
every ambulacral plate or only every other plate has a primary spine, whether the secondary spines
are fine, silky, or not, whether or not the actinal spines are curved in the point, whether the buccal
membrane is quite naked, or fenestrated plates are found inside of the buccal plates; finally the
question might also be of using the pedicellarize or the features of the ocular plates as a basis of the
distribution of the species.

E. albocinctus is the most isolated one, especially distinguished by having only one unpaired
lateral tooth on the globiferous pedicellarize. As this feature, as will be shown below, is of very great
systematic importance, it seems reasonable to separate this species as a separate genus, even if in some
features it agrees very exactly with Zch. magellanicus (the quite naked buccal membrane, primary
tubercle on every ambulacral plate). For this form the name of Pseudechinus is proposed. — To
separate the other four species is scarcely correct; according as one or other of the mentioned char-
acters is used as a base of the division we get a different grouping. Here a so curious intermingling
of all characters is found, that we only seem to have two chances left: to establish each species as a
separate genus — by which nothing is gained — or to unite them all to one genus, which latter I
think to be the most correct thing. Then this genus gets the name of S¢evechimus Koehler. Con-

sidering the common opinion of the difficulty of these species I shall give the following

Table of the Sterechinus-species’).

Tae hie secondary iSpines ute. willy eye ere ee eee insert ered ieee 2.
— =. | ACOMTS Ce’ n'a a aya ey Vator ree ER OCU o Ree Ae oso veo PRTC 3:
2. Primary tubercle only on every other ambulacral plate; the globiferous pedicel-

larize with 1—1z lateral tooth, the edges connected by cross-beams............. St. margaritaceus.

1) A table of the Zchinus-species will be given below, after the description of the northern species.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 107

Primary tubercle on every ambulacral plate; the globiferous pedicellarize with

Be hate eR ILA erect Rasen reek St. horridus.
3. Primary tubercle on every other ambulacral plate................ Ree an Oe St. Newmayert.

2—4 teeth on either side, the edges not connected

_— = ee eambulactalimplatere tech weirs. eee ccks s oauke ree ate St. magellanicus.

Echinus miliaris, microtuberculatus, and angulosus form a separate group chiefly characterized
by the globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVII. Figs. 1, 7). The blade is rather flat, comparatively broad, and
passes evenly into the basal part; no cross-beams connect the edges across the inside of the blade;
the edges are not thickened, and project into more or fewer teeth on either side. There is no neck;
the stalk as usually constructed of long threads connected by cross-beams. A somewhat similar form
of globiferous pedicellariz is found in Sterechinus horridus (Pl. XIX. Fig. 22), and sometimes also in
Echinus Alexandri (P\. XVIII. Fig.9). A comparison of the figures will show, however, that they are
very different, even if it is not easy to point out a particular distinguishing character; the most signi-
ficant one is, I think, that here the edge is somewhat thickened, so that the teeth are placed on it,
while in Ech. miliaris etc. the edge is quite sharp, and the «teeth» are simply indentations in the
edge; also the whole form is somewhat different, as shown by the figures.

The following characters of the separate species must be pointed out. In ch. miliaris the
buccal membrane is covered by large, thick fenestrated plates. The globiferous pedicellariz have
numerous lateral teeth; the tridentate ones have a rather strong net of meshes in the bottom of the
blade (only the large ones); the edge is coarsely indented below, in the outer part where the valves
join coarsely sinuate, but the sinuations are again finely serrate; the small teeth form no transverse
series (Pl. XVII. Fig. 11). The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellaricze with no conspicuous peculiar-
ities. — All three species have a primary spine on every ambulacral plate; in mzliaris and mucrotuber-
culatus the ocular plates are shut off from the periproct, in Z. angwlosus the two (three) reach to the
periproct; no distinct central plate.

Ech. microtuberculatus agrees exactly with mzliaris in the structure of the pedicellariz; it is
only to be observed that the tridentate pedicellarie have rather distinct transverse series of teeth on
the edge. The plates of the buccal membrane are especially characteristic (Pl. XVI. Fig. 14). They
are large, thick, greenish, and of quite another structure than in mz/iarzs, not consisting of the usual
reticulation, but of a homogeneous mass of lime, in which the pores appear as deep, funnel-shaped
holes. Also the plates inside of the buccal plates are constructed in this way. Otherwise it is distin-
guished from mzliaris by its somewhat finer spines and corresponding smaller tubercles (Pl. XV.
Figs. 8, 9); the colour of the test and spines is more intensely green. — In the original diagnosis of
Ech. microtuberculatus*) it is said: «ambulacres A denticules trés-arquées et composées de six paires de
pores»; in Blainville’s «Manuel @Actinologie» 1834 p. 228 Z. parvituberculatus, de Blainv. «Dict. tom.
37. p. 88, sous le nom @Z. microtuberculatus» is enumerated under the division D. «Espéces réguliéres,
de forme un peu variable; les denticules des lignes ambulacraires droites ou arquées de cinq paires de
pores au moins». Accordingly it is no doubt wrong when Agassiz and Desor (Catalogue raisonné

des Echinides p.64) enumerates it (referring to the passages quoted above) under their fourth type,

1) Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles. T. XXXVII. p. 88. (1825.)

14*

108 ECHINOIDEA. I.

with «trois paires de pores obliques». Now if the two authors had done so consciously, they would
certainly have made a remark to the effect that the type specimen had not the six pairs of pores, but
only three. Such a remark, as far as I can see, they have not made, and so there can scarcely be
any doubt that this species has quite wrongly got the name of mzcrotuberculatus. As a synonym of
it Agassiz & Desor (loc. cit.) mention Ech. pelchellus Ag. and decoratus Ag., and the former of these
names should then be employed for this species. The description of Ech. pulchellus') may agree rather
well with it, even if it cannot be said to be a very appropriate one; it might also agree with young
specimens of Strongyloc. lividus. Therefore I think it better to wait for a renewed examination of the
type specimens, before the commonly used name of mzcrotuberculatus is rejected.

Ech. angulosus is distinguished from the two other species by the two ocular plates reaching
to the periproct, and by the plates of the buccal membrane being fine and quite imbedded in the skin;
only a few are thick and carry pedicellarie. The globiferous pedicellariz have only two, more rarely
three teeth on either side; the tridentate ones are more strongly sinuate in the outer part where the
valves join (Pl. XVII. Fig.6); the larger ones have a rather strong net of meshes, the edge is thick,
in the lower part with very distinct transverse series of small teeth. The ophicephalous pedicellariz
have generally only a simple keel in the middle of the blade, without any net of meshes
(Pl. XVII. Fig. 3).

These three species must absolutely form a separate genus. Most recent authors use the name
of Psammechinus Ag. for them, but wrongly. In «Catalogue raisonné» p. 64 under the fourth type
Sous-genre Psammechinus Ag.» are named first the species varzegatus Lamk. and semituberculatus
Val. and as no. 3 subangulosus Tamk. There can be no doubt, then, that the two first-named may
claim the name of Psammechinus, as it appears that they cannot be classed with the genus 7Zoxo-
pueustes, to which they are referred in «Rey. of Ech.», but must form a separate genus (see below).
For the species miliaris, microtuberculatus, and angulosus a new genus must then be established; I
propose the name of Parechinus.

Psammechinus verruculatus Ltk. Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 122) mentions this species as syno-
nymous with Parech. angulosus; de Loriol (245. p. 21) objects to this and maintains that they are two
well distinguished species. I must not only grant that de Loriol is right in his statement, but shall
have to go much farther and assert that it cannot be referred to the same genus, nay, not even to
the same family as Parech. angulosus. Prof. de Loriol has kindly sent me a specimen of his

Echinus verruculatus tk.» from Mauritius, and so I have been able to compare it with the type
specimens of Ltitken, which are found in the museum of Copenhagen. All the type specimens are
naked tests, so that it is impossible to tell quite certainly, whether the species of de Loriol is really
identical with these specimens; all the most important characters are wanting on the naked tests —
nay, it is, moreover, probable that the type specimens really belong to two different species. It is,
however, certain, that the description given by de Loriol of the coloration of his specimens?), agrees

exactly with two of the type specimens, and I think it very likely that they are really identical. Full

1) Introduction to Valentin’s Anatomie du genre Echinus. p. VI.
2) In the specimen sent me by de Loriol, there is no trace of coloration on the test; only the spines have the
colour described by de Loriol.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 109

certainty, I think, can never be obtained, and there is nothing to be done but to resolve that the
species of de Loriol shall in future be taken to be the Psammechinus verruculatus of Liitken.

To the description by de Loriol I shall here make some additions. A primary tubercle is
found on every ambulacral plate. De Loriol states that two ocular plates reach to the periproct; in
the specimen before me this is only the case with one plate. The genital pores are especially large.
The buccal membrane contains numerous small fenestrated plates both inside and outside of the buccal
plates; those outside the buccal plates are a little larger, a few are thick and carry pedicellaric, while
most of them are simple fenestrated plates, quite imbedded in the skin; a few bihamate spicules are
also found in the buccal membrane. The gills contain the usual fenestrated plates. The mouth-slits,
as observed by de Loriol, are small, but very distinct. The globiferous pedicellariz are very different
from those of the genera Echinus, Sterechinus, and Parechinus; by this reason only this species was
to be separated from those genera. The blade is quite closed to a thin tube without lateral teeth, as
in Spherechinus granularis; no neck; I suppose that glands are found on the stalk, but this fact could
not with certainty be substantiated from the dried specimen in hand. The tridentate pedicellariz
(Pl. XXI. Fig. 2) have a broad, deep blade with a slight indication of a net of meshes in the bottom;
the valves join for almost their whole length, the edge is rather strongly, but simply serrate. The
ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize of the common form. The spicules are very peculiar
(Pl. XXI. Fig. 28), small, with a little ball at each end, quite resembling dumb-bells. They are found
in especially great numbers in the globiferous pedicellarize, also, however, in the tube feet, but in
rather small number. Genuine bihamate spicules do not appear to be found in the tube feet.

This peculiar form of globiferous pedicellarize and spicules is also found in «chinmus» Robil-
lardt, and darnleyensis, further in the genera Zoxopneustes and Tripneustes, and there can be no doubt
that the mentioned species belong here. To which genus they will have to be referred cannot be
decided, until we have examined the Zoxopueustes- and Tripneustes-species.

Echinus Robillardi Woriol. To the description of this species by de Loriol (245 p.23) I may
add the following informations (a specimen received from Prof. de Loriol). A primary tubercle is
found on every ambulacral plate. The peristome is very peculiar, quite naked. Inside of the buccal
plates a belt is found with numerous bihamate spicules, and in the inner edge a few larger, irregular
needles are found (Pl. XXI. Fig. 24. b). At the outer edge of the peristome again rather numerous
bihamate spicules are found, and in the gills seem to be found, not the usual fenestrated plates, but
numerous bihamate spicules. Otherwise no other plates than the buccal ones are found in the buccal
membrane; these buccal plates are not placed in pairs opposite to each other as usual, but one out-
side the other; neither spines nor pedicellarie are found on the buccal plates. The very peculiar,
oblique apical area has been accurately described by de Loriol, who also points out that the slits of
the test are small and indistinct. The globiferous pedicellarie as in Spherechinus, without lateral
teeth, the blade a closed tube; I have not been able to decide from the dried specimen in hand whether
glands are found on the stalk. The tridentate pedicellariz very peculiar (Pl. XXI. Figs. 4, 11); the
lower part of the blade is narrow and quite filled by a net of meshes, so that the edges are quite
coalesced; the upper part is a little widened with straight, finely serrate edge. Only this part of the

valves join, so that they are wide apart below. The ophicephalous pedicellariz without conspicuous

3@ Ge) ECHINOIDEA. I.

peculiarities; triphyllous pedicellariz I have not seen. In the globiferous pedicellarize numerous
spicules are found, somewhat thickened in the ends (Pl. XXI. Fig. 24. a), although not markedly dumb-
bell-shaped; also a few common bihamate spicules are found among them. In the tube feet the biha-
mate spicules are predominant, but the other form is also found. — De Loriol, no doubt, is right
that this is a distinct species; but it is no Achinus. Its nearest relations are «Echinus» verruculatus
and especially darnleyenszs.

Echinus darnleyensts Woods. Of this species I have had occasion to examine a specimen from
Thursday Island, Torres Strait, 4 fathoms (the «Alert»-Expedition) in British Museum. (I cannot
answer for the correctness of the determination; that it corresponds with the description is no guar-
antee for its being the same species, as the description gives only the usual things: spines, tubercles
etc, but mentions neither spicules nor pedicellariz.) A primary tubercle is found on every ambulacral
plate; according to Woods (442. p.165) the ocular plates are quite shut off from the periproct — but
according to an information from Prof. Bell they are not shut off from the periproct in these speci-
mens (I have forgotten to ascertain it myself). The buccal membrane is quite naked with the excep-
tion of the buccal plates which are placed in pairs opposite to each other, and carry a few pedicellariz.
«With ten rounded small openings surrounded by Pedicellarize», it is said in the description by Woods;
this, I think, must be the holes in the buccal plates for the buccal tube feet — a rather common
feature to note in a description of species! Innermost in the edge of the mouth numerous needle-
shaped, more or less irregular spicules are found resembling those of «Ech.» Robillardi; they are
arranged parallel to the edge of the mouth; a few are a little fenestrated. Outside of these some
bihamate spicules are found, but far from so great a number as in Rodillardz. Near the gills numerous
bihamate spicules are found in the buccal membrane. The gills themselves contain the common irre-
gular fenestrated plates. According to Woods the auricule are only «slight thin processes, which do
not meet»; Prof. Bell informs me that they are here of the common form. (In verrucaulatus and Robil-
lardi they are also of the common form.) The globiferous pedicellarie as in Spherechinus, only is
the blade uncommonly short (Pl. XXI. Fig. 36). In the tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XXI. Fig. 7) the blade
is broad, open, with only a slight net of meshes in the bottom. The edge is finely, simply serrate in
the outer part where the valves join; in the lower part a few larger indentations are found. The
valves are rather wide apart. Ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize of the common form. ‘The
spicules (Pl. XXI. Fig. 23) of the globiferous pedicellariee arcuate, but not pointed at the ends; in the
tube feet only a few bihamate spicules are found. — Woods thinks that it is this species Agassiz
has wrongly referred to Ech. magellanicus; that it has nothing to do with magellanicus is certain,
although the differences pointed out by Woods: «in the actinostome being larger; in the abactinal
system, where the genital plates have only two tubercles, and in the color of spines and test» are
quite irrelevant. The principal difference is to be found in the globiferous pedicellarizee and the spi-
cules; they show that this species is no Lchinus or Sterechinus at all, but like Ech. Robillard’ and
verruculatus is closely allied to Toxopneustes and Tripneustes.

To the genus 7oxopneustes Ag. are referred the species: maculatus (Lamk.), pileolus (Lamk.),
elegans Doderl., vartegatus (Lamk.), and semituberculatus (Val.); to the genus 7ripneustes Ag. (in Rev.

of Ech. this genus is called Hpponoé) are referred the species: esculentus (Leske), depressus Ag., and

ECHINOIDEA. I. If!

variegatus (Leske). I have had occasion to examine all these species, with the exception of 7. macu-
latus; of 7. elegans Prof. Déoderlein has most kindly sent me a specimen, 7: semztuberculatus I have
seen in British Museum, the other species are found in the museum in Copenhagen. I shall therefore
make a few supplementary remarks to the existing descriptions of these species. Information is espe-
cially wanting with regard to pedicellarize and spicules.

Toxopneustes pileolus (Lamk.). Some specimens found in our museum have by Liitken been
determined as 7: maculatus, but this determination, no doubt, is incorrect. They agree exactly with
the description of 7: pzleolus, having especially the characteristic coloration so often mentioned; on
the other hand they do not at all agree with Lamarck’s diagnosis of 4. maculatus. Therefore I do
not hesitate to refer them to fz/eolws. — Only every other ambulacral plate has a primary tubercle;
two ocular plates reach to the periproct. The buccal membrane contains numerous fenestrated plates
as well inside as outside of the buccal plates; not a few of them are thick and carry pedicellariz.
Besides the fenestrated plates the buccal membrane contains numerous bihamate spicules; also in the
gills bihamate spicules are found in great numbers together with the common irregular fenestrated
plates. No spines on the buccal plates. The globiferous pedicellariz without lateral teeth and with
tubular blade as in SPherechinus, but they are remarkable by the extraordinary length of the blade
and the end-tooth (Pl. XXI. Fig. 13); in the apophysis there is a long, narrow slit; no neck; small
glands are found on the stalk. The tridentate pedicellariz are very large, the head up to a length of
3™"; the neck very short. The outer part of the blade where the valves join, is coarsely and irre-
gularly indented in the edge, in the lower part the edge is smooth, or has a few larger thorns. In
the bottom of the blade a strong and very complicate net of meshes is found hiding the usual regular
arrangement of the holes, even at the point of the blade (Pl. XXI. Fig. q1). In smaller pedicellarice
this net of meshes, no doubt, will be much less developed, but such pedicellarize I have not found in
the specimens in hand. For a long way the valves are apart, but not much, so that only a narrow
slit is found between them. Ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellariz without particular peculiarities.
The stalk of the pedicellariz compact. The spicules (Pl. XXI. Fig. 21.a) in the pedicellarize are of the
typical dumb-bell shape; in the smaller globiferous pedicellarize on the abactinal side they form a thick
white border all round the head, the valves being united almost through their whole length by a fine
skin. These pedicellarie are almost always open, and give the animal a very characteristic appear-
ance — which, no doubt, also holds good with regard to 7: elegans. When they are shut the border
of spicules is slackened to as to make a kind of fringe round the point; the large globiferous pedicel-
lariee of the actinal side do not seem to have such a border. In the tube feet a few dumb-bell-shaped
spicules are found together with more numerous bihamate spicules; most of the latter, especially those
nearest to the sucking disk, have some small branches on the outside at the points (Fig. 21. b); the
spicules of the buccal membrane are much finer (Fig. 21.c); also here a few dumb-bell-shaped spicules
are found.

As a synonym of 7. fileolus Agassiz in Rev. of Ech. mentions the species Boletia rosea before
established by himself. To judge from the authentic specimens before me of Z. rosea (from Mus. Comp.
Zool.) I think it, however, somewhat doubtful that they are really only one species. Besides the

difference with regard to colour (the spines uniformly brown, the test only with a slight reddish tint,

112 ECHINOIDEA. I.

otherwise quite brown), there is another fact that may, perhaps, be of some significance. In TZ: prleolus
the secondary tubercles in the ambulacral areas — on the plates wanting the primary tubercle — are
as large as the primary ones, so that it can only be seen from their position, whether they are prim-
ary or secondary ones; in vosews the primary tubercles are distinctly larger than the secondary ones
on the plates where the primary tubercle is wanting. If this feature proves to be constant, there can
scarcely be any doubt that they are two well distinguished species. In spicules and pedicellarie any
difference of importance is scarcely to be found.

Toxopneustes elegans Doderl. agrees exactly with 7: pzleolus (I have not, however, seen the tri-
dentate and triphyllous pedicellarize); as far as I can see it is only distinguished from 7: Arleolus by
its peculiarly coloured spines — they have a sharply limited dark band near the point — and by the
colour of the test, it being in 7: elegans «yellowish without any indication of coloration, only the median
suture of the ambulacral and interambulacral areas is dark violet on the apical side». (Dédder-
lein I14. p. 99.)

Toxopneustes variegatus (Iamk.). To the existing descriptions I shall add the following
remarks. A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates. The globiferous pedicellarize
(Pl. XXI. Figs. 38, 40) with tubular blade, without lateral teeth, not very much lengthened. Glands
may be found on the stalk, but are most frequently wanting. The tridentate pedicellarie (Pl. XXI.
Fig. 10) are large, the head up to 15™™, and long-necked. There is only little mesh-work in the blade,
the edge is straight, rather thick, with numerous, irregularly placed small teeth; the valves are only
a little apart below. The triphyllous and ophicephalous pedicellarize of the common form. ‘The
spicules (Pl. XX. Fig. 15) are dumb-bell-shaped, exceedingly numerous in the skin of the globiferous
pedicellarize (as in all these species); here all transitional forms may be found from small, oval bodies
to typical, bihamate spicules (Pl. XXI. Fig. 31), but the really dumb-bell-shaped ones are by far the most
numerous. In the tube feet only bihamate spicules are found in small number.

Toxopneustes semituberculatus (Val.), no doubt, is most nearly allied to 7) variegatus; especially
must be emphasized that it likewise has a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. Spicules and
pedicellariz as in 7: variegatus, only the globiferous pedicellaria show a conspicuous peculiarity ‘the
lime in the valves being of a deep violet colour, with the exception of a small, oblong, clear spot in
the basal part on either side of the apophysis. Glands are found on the stalk. — Otherwise, as is
well known, it is distinguished from varzegatus by the less marked plate-covering on the buccal
membrane.

Tripneustes esculentus (Leske). A primary tubercle is only found on every third or fourth
ambulacral plate. The buccal membrane contains numerous small fenestrated plates inside of the
buccal plates, outside of these fewer, small, round, thick plates with pedicellarize are found. The pedi-
cellariz are numerous, much pigmented, and form a quite black ground between the spines. The
globiferous pedicellarize are small, the valves as in the other allied forms (Pl. XXI. Fig. 39). Glands
are found on the stalk. In the tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XXI. Fig. 16) the blade is filled by a highly
developed net of meshes; the point rather abruptly widened with the edge exceedingly finely serrate,
in the lower part of the blade the edge is more or less coarsely dentate. The valves are rather wide

apart, only joining at the point. Together with these a smaller form of tridentate pedicellarize

ECHINOIDEA. L. Il3

(Pl. XXI. Fig. 3) is found, with a broader blade and less developed mesh-work; the part where the
valves join, is comparatively larger than in the large form; transitional forms are found. The ophice-
phalous pedicellariz shorter and broader than usual (Pl. XXI. Fig. 22); the triphyllous pedicellarize of
the common form. The spicules of the pedicellarize are typically dumb-bell-shaped (Pl. XXI. Fig. 33. a);
in the tube feet common bihamate spicules are found together with very small spicules, also bihamate
(Fig. 33. b) or a little dumb-bell-shaped; in the buccal membrane numerous small spicules are found
with truncate ends (Fig. 33.c) together with larger bihamate spicules (Fig. 33. d).

Tripneustes depressus A. Ag. is, with regard to spicules and pedicellariz, quite similar to escw-
lentus; I have not, however, been able to find tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz on the only,
badly preserved specimen before me. As in escelentus only every third or fourth ambulacral plate has
a primary tubercle. The difference between the two species is very well given in Rev. of Ech.

Tripneustes vartegatus (Leske). A primary tubercle is only found on every third ambulacral
plate; the secondary tubercles almost as large as the primary ones, so that the latter are only to be
distinguished with difficulty, while in escalentus the primary tubercles form a beautiful, rather con-
spicuous series. As in escalentus two ocular plates reach to the periproct; no central plate. The buccal
membrane with numerous thick fenestrated plates carrying pedicellarize; even globiferous pedicellariz
may be found on the buccal membrane, a fact I have not seen in any other Echinid. The globiferous
pedicellarize quite as in esczlentus, the tridentate ones resemble very much the smaller form in escw-
lentus; a form corresponding to the larger form in this species I have not found in 7) variegatus.
Ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize as in escalentus; the spicules of the pedicellarize typically
dumb-bell-shaped; in the tube feet only really dumb-bell-shaped spicules seem to be found, in the buccal
membrane there are comparatively few spicules, partly larger, bihamate ones, partly smaller, somewhat
dumb-bell-shaped ones. According to Lovén (252) this species corresponds to Linné’s Echinus Gra-
fila; this name must then be adopted instead of varzegatus (Leske).

According to the definition given by Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 297 seq.) the genera 7oxopneustes
and 7Zripneustes (Hipponoé) are chiefly distinguished by the fact that in Zoxopneustes the pores are
arranged in oblique arcs of three pairs, while in Z7zpneustes the pores form three vertical series; the
series in the middle is irregular, the two outer ones are regular. The other characters — whether the
peristome is large or small, and whether the tubercles form more or less regular vertical and hori-
zontal series — are of a so relative nature, that it will be better to leave them out of consideration.
Unfortunately the mentioned principal character is not reliable either; in larger specimens of 7oxo0-
pneustes the pores may form three irregular longitudinal series as in Zyzpneustes, what has already
been mentioned by Agassiz in his diagnosis of the genus Zoxopucustes, and in smaller specimens of
Tripneustes, wp to a diameter of ca. 20™™, the pores are arranged in quite similar arcs of three pairs
as in Toxopueustes without any indication of an arrangement in longitudinal series. Accordingly none
of the characters hitherto pointed out are reliable. It must, however, be admitted that the species
esculentus, depressus, and gratilla form a group that is, as to their habitus, very different from the
species referred to Zoxopmeustes, so that it seems natural to keep them as a separate genus. To this
is to be added that, if the genera Zoxopmeustes and Tripneustcs were to be united, it would give rise

to a complete rearrangement of the nomenclature; especially the name of Zoxopneustes would then have
The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. r. 15

114 ECHINOIDEA. I.

to be used for a quite different series of forms: «Strongylocentrotus» tuberculatus ete., which, as will
be shown below, do not at all belong to the genus Strongylocentrotus. This would certainly create
much confusion, and only to avoid this calamity these genera ought to be kept up, if there are no
cogent reasons for uniting them. Now such reasons are not found; on the contrary a closer examina-
tion shows that other characters are found, more reliable than those given by Agassiz, which char-
acters may also be used for the small specimens, where the characters mentioned above cannot be
used at all.

While all the species referred to 77zpmeustes are no doubt closely allied, the same thing cannot
be said of the Zoxopmeustes-species; they form two well distinguished groups. The species Az/eolus,
elegans, and rosews form a group characterized by having only a primary tubercle on every other
ambulacral plate, by the peculiar globiferous pedicellariz with a border of spicules and much length-
ened blade and end-tooth, and by the branched bihamate spicules in the tube feet. The species
vartegatus and semituberculatus have a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates; the globiferous
pedicellariz have no border of spicules, the blade is not much lengthened, the bihamate spicules in
the tube feet are not branched in the ends. That the buccal membrane is more richly provided with
plates and the spines longer than in the former group, I take to be less reliable characters, especially
as there is a rather great difference between vartegatus and semituberculatus with regard to the plates
of the buccal membrane. Thus the two groups are seen to be very well distinguished, and each of
them ought no doubt to form a separate genus. As fz/eolus is the type of the genus Zoxopneustes?)
of Agassiz, this group must keep this name. The other group gets the name of Psammechinus,
which name here gets its definitive place, after having so long been abused (comp. p. 108); the numerous
names that in the course of time have been applied to Ps. vartegatus: Lytechinus, Psilechinus etc.,
become only synonyms of Psammechinus.

After having thus limited the genus Zoxopmeustes, it is easy to state the characters, by which
the genus Z7zpmeustes is distinguished as well from the former genus as from Psammechinus. A
primary tubercle is only found on every third ambulacral plate; no border of spicules on the globi-
ferous pedicellarize, the blade not much lengthened; the bihamate spicules in the tube feet not
branched in the ends. To these characters is then to be added with regard to the larger specimens
the characteristic arrangement of the pores in three separated longitudinal series. — In «Rev. of Ech.»
Agassiz has adopted the name of //ppfonoé Gray in stead of Zripneustes Ag. Bell (38) maintains
that this is unwarranted, as the name of //zffonoé has originally only been published as a nomen
nudum, for which no species is given as the type. That Gray himself has later shown Agassiz,
which species he regarded as the type of his genus /Zippfonoé (Agassiz, 7), does not justify the adop-
tion of this name, any more than the assertion of Agassiz senior that if the name of //zpponoé proves
to be a synonym of his 77zpmeustes, the former is to be preferred (Introd. to Valentin’s Anat. du
genre Echinus. p.[X.). As well known the author of a name has himself no more command of it

1) The name of Toxopueustes has first been proposed by L. Agassiz in «Observations sur les progrés récens de
histoire naturelle des Echinodermes». (Monographies d’Echinodermes. p.7.) «Dans un travail encore inédit sur les espéces
vivantes de l’ancien genre Echinus .... j'ai établi les coupes suivantes, dont je me bornerai a citer ici les types: Temnopleurus
(EZ. toreumaticus), .... Toxopneustes (E. pileolus)». Tater, in the preface to Valentin’s «Anatomie du genre Echinus». p. X.
Agassiz says of Toxopueustes: «Je prends pour type de ce genre /’Echinus tuterculatus». — As a matter of course pi/eo/us
must have the prior right to the name of Zoxopuezstes.

ECHINOIDEA. I. IIs

than others, when it has first been published. I must decidedly follow Bell and de Loriol in the
opinion that the name of 77ipnewstes has the priority.

The species «Echinus» Robillard:, darnleyensis, and verruculatus belong, as stated above, also
here, but to which genus? They have, all of them, a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates;
by this feature they are excluded from the genera Zoxopueustes and Tripneustes, this character being
here evidently of rather more value than among the “chinzs-species. They must then either be
referred to Psammechinus or form a new genus. In verraculatus the buccal membrane contains
numerous fenestrated plates, to be sure much smaller and finer than in varzegatus, where the buccal
membrane is closely covered with large, thick plates; but in this respect semztuberculatus keeps an
intermediate position between the two, so that no definite limit can be given. The feature is quite
analogous with that of Parechinus microtuberculatus, miliaris, and angulosus. Otherwise I can see no
character that would justify a referring of this species to another genus. The mouth-slits are in no way
smaller than in small specimens of variegatus of a corresponding size; in a specimen of verruculatus
of a diameter of 21™™ they have a depth of 1™™, in a specimen of variegatus of a diameter of 23™™
they have only the same depth. Further the coloration of the test in young varzegatus is so very
similar to that typical of verruculatus, that a comparison gives the immediate impression that they
must be very closely allied. Accordingly I can only regard it as correct to refer this species to the
genus Psammechinus, where it has already been referred by Liitken — who did not, to be sure, inter-
pret the genus Psammechinus in the way it is done here, since he establishes the genus Pszlechinus
for Ps. variegatus, and in the same paragraph he names verraculatus as a typical Psammechinus*).

The species Rodillardi and darnleyensis are distinguished from Psammechinus by their naked
buccal membrane; it is, as described above, quite naked with the exception of the buccal plates, but
contains more or fewer irregular spicules in the inner edge. The spicules of the pedicellariz are not
quite dumb-bell-shaped as in verruculatus and the other Psammechinus-species, but are formed as
bows, which are a little thicker at the ends or of the same thickness in their whole length. These
two features, I think, render the referring to the genus Psammechinus impossible, and they must con-
sequently form a separate genus, for which I propose the name of Gymnechinus.

Whether Zoxopn. maculatus really belongs to Zoxopneustes or must rather be referred to
another genus cannot be decided from the existing descriptions.

To the genus Avechinus Verr. are referred the species chloroticus (Val.), australie Woods, and
rarituberculatus Bell; of these I have examined chloroticus and rarituberculatus (the type specimen),
with regard to which I can give the following informations in addition to what is hitherto known.

Evechinus chloroticus (Val.). The 4—5 nethermost ambulacral plates have all a primary
tubercle, then only every other plate, and above the ambitus only every third plate has a primary
tubercle. In small specimens a primary tubercle will thus be found on every other plate on the ab-
actinal side. The small spines are club-shaped. The buccal membrane inside and outside the buccal
plates is richly provided with rather small, simple fenestrated plates, some of those outside the buccal
plates are complicate and carry pedicellariz. No spines on the buccal plates. The globiferous pedi-
cellariz (Pl. XIX. Figs.6, 12) are very characteristic. There is only one unpaired, very strong lateral

1) Bidrag til Kundskab om Echiniderne. p. 27.

116 ECHINOIDEA. I.

tooth; the outer corners of the basal part are strongly produced in a wing-shaped manner, and the
holes in the corners are most frequently somewhat lengthened. No neck or perhaps a short one; as
I have only had dried specimens for examination, I have not been able to decide this fact with cer-
tainty; the stalk compact. In the tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 39) the blade is rather broad
with a strong, somewhat thorny net of meshes at the bottom. The edge is strongly indented, espe-
cially in the outer half, where the valves join; in the lower half they are apart, but not very much.
The ophicephalous pedicellariz have an almost straight edge, which is otherwise finely serrate as
usual; the teeth, as is often the case, continue down the upper ends of the apophysis. The triphyllous
pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 29) are very peculiar, the upper end of the apophysis forming a cover-plate,
from which digitate projections pass over the blade, which is curved strongly inward in the middle.
The edge smooth as usual. The spicules are bihamate, very few in number.

Evechinus rarituberculatus Bell is by Farquhar (145) taken to be young specimens of £. chio-
roticus. It is certain that it is very similar to chloroticus, but I cannot regard it as proved that it is
synonymous with this species, as the tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 7) show a considerable dif-
ference from those of chloroticus. They have no coarse indentations in the edge, which is almost
straight and very slightly serrate, only at the lowermost part there are a few larger indentations; the
net of meshes in the bottom is slight, not thorny. The valves join through almost their whole
length. — Perhaps similar pedicellarie may be found in chloroticus together with the form described
above; in my specimens, however, I have not been able to find such. For the present I must then
regard rarituberculatus as a separate species. — The globiferous and ophicephalous pedicellariz are
quite as those of chloroticus, the triphyllous ones I have not seen. — Of Avech. australe Woods I
know nothing.

Agassiz (Rey. of Ech. p. 502) thinks Avechimus to be closely allied to 77ripneustes (Hipponoe);
that there is no nearer relation at all between these two genera is seen with all desirable distinctness
from the facts given above. The unpaired lateral tooth on the globiferous pedicellariz draws the
attention to Pseudechinus albocinctus; but the naked buccal membrane in the latter and the fact that
a primary tubercle is here found on all the ambulacral plates, do not indicate a very near relation
between the two forms. A quite similar form of globiferous pedicellaria is found in «Strongylocen-
trotus» tuberculatus and closely allied species, and these, no doubt, are its nearest relations. A more
thorough inquiring into this question must, however, be put off, until these species are treated.

In «Cat. rais.» the species variolarts Lamk., paucituberculatus Blainyv., and chloroticus Val. are
enumerated under the genus Helocidaris. — For the first of these species the older name of S¢omo-
pneustes must be used; according to Agassiz (Rev. of Ech.) paucetuberculatus is synonymous with
this. As far as I can see, chloroticus must then be the type of the genus //eliocidaris; the name of
Evechinus Verr. (1871) must then be dropped as being a much younger one, and I cannot but wonder,
why Agassiz, who otherwise takes great care to reestablish the oldest names, has here preferred the
name of Lvechinus.

To the genus Spherechinus Desor the species granularis (Lamk.), vosews Russo, australi@ A. Ag.,

and pulcherrimus (Barn.) are referred; of these I have had no occasion to examine Sf. roseus, but

ECHINOIDEA. I. 117

the existing figures and the description (347) show distinctly that it is closely allied to granularts.
The other three species I have examined, and can give some new informations of them.

Spherechinus granularts (lamk.). All the ambulacral plates have a primary tubercle. The
buccal membrane contains outside of the buccal plates only few, small fenestrated plates, but they are
thick and carry pedicellariz, inside of the buccal plates there are numerous small, little complicate
fenestrated plates. No spines on the buccal plates. The globiferous pedicellariz, which have often
been described and figured, have a tubular blade without lateral teeth (Pl. XXI. Figs. 35, 37); the end-
tooth is peculiarly furrowed, so that it is a little difficult to see the open canal on the upper side. No
neck. Glands on the stalk are found (were formerly only known in this species), the stalk tubular or
compact!). The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XXI. Fig. 34) with a well developed net of meshes, almost
to the point of the blade; the edge is thick with an indication of transverse series of teeth. The
valves are apart for about half their length, but the slit between them is rather narrow. The length
of the head up to 2™™ The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellariz of the common form. The
spicules in the globiferous pedicellarize are slightly thickened at the ends (PI. XXI. Fig. 12), but not
really dumh-bell-shaped. In the tube feet only a few spicules are found just below the sucking disk;
they are bihamate with small branches on the outside at both ends — quite as in Zoxopmeustes
pileolus. Yn the buccal membrane, especially nearest to the gills, and in the gills, fine, genuine biha-
mate spicules are found; in the gills the usual irregular fenestrated plates are also found.

Spherechinus austrahe Ag. agrees with regard to spicules and pedicellariz exactly with granu-
lar’s. Whether a primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates, I cannot tell with certainty,
as I have omitted the examination of this feature during my stay at British Museum; but as all other
polypore Echinids that I know, have a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates, there can scarcely
be any doubt that the fact is the same in this species. In «Challenger»-Echinoidea (p. 106) SAA.
australie is mentioned from st. 162 (Bass’s Strait). In British Museum I have examined the specimen
upon which this statement rests, and have found that it is no Spherechinus at all. The globiferous
pedicellarize have one unpaired lateral tooth, and recall those of «Strongylocentrotus» tuderculatus very
much; otherwise I shall not decide to which genus and species this young specimen belongs, but rest
satisfied with having pointed out that it is no SAh@erechinus.

Spherechinus pulcherrimus (Barn.), as well by its whole habitus as by its spicules and pedicel-
larize, differs so much from the other Sfherechinus-species that there can be no question of referring
it to this genus. On the other hand it shows great conformity with some S¢rongylocentrotus-species
(intermedius and chlorocentrotus), and so it will be more particularly mentioned together with these species.

Agassiz says of the genus Spherechinus: «this genus can hardly rank as more than a sub-
generic division of Strongylocentrotus; the presence of deep, sharp cuts in the actinal system and the
regularity of the arrangement of the tubercles, although giving to the species of this genus a striking
facies, are simply quantitative characters, the value of which a better acquaintance with the subject

will determine» (Rev. of Ech. p. 451). I shall readily admit that the difference between the deep slits

1) The so-called «Globiferce> (Hamann 184) can only be interpreted as globiferous pedicellariw, where the glands on
the stalk have been highly developed at the cost of the head. The head is perhaps even torn off; at all events it is a sure
fact that animals which are attacked by the pedicellaria, can tear off the heads of the globiferous pedicellarie. The so-called
Trichelina parvadoxa (Barrois. 28), as is a well known fact, is only torn-off heads of globiferous pedicellarie.

118 ECHINOIDEA. I.

in Spherechinus and the small ones in Strongylocentrotus is a quantitative one, as also the difference
between the numerous tubercles in the former and the fewer ones in the latter genus. This, however,
does not preclude the fact that especially the deep slits are a character very sharply distinguishing
Spherechinus from Strongylocentrotus. But other characters are found, not quantitative, but structural,
which also make a sharp distinction between the two genera, viz. spicules and pedicellariz (comp. the
description below of Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis). There can be no question at all of making
Spherechinus only a subgenus of Strongylocentrotus; it is a very well characterized genus, evidently
most closely allied to Psammechinus, Toxopneustes ete.

To the genus Pseewdoboletia 'Troschel are, in «Rev. of Ech.» referred the species granulata (Ag.)
and zzdiana (Mich.); of the latter Prof. de Loriol has kindly sent me a specimen. To the description
of this species by Agassiz and de Loriol (245) I can add the following informations. A primary
tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane contains, besides the numerous
thick plates carrying both spines and pedicellarie, a great number of dumb-bell-shaped spicules and
some bihamate ones; inside of the buccal plates numerous small, rather thick fenestrated plates with-
out spines or pedicellariz, and a few spicules, most of which are bihamate, almost none of them dumb-
bell-shaped. The gills with common fenestrated plates, a few dumb-bell-shaped spicules, and innumer-
able bihamate ones. The globiferous pedicellariz as in Spherechinus; they are strikingly different as
to size, but otherwise similarly constructed. The figure given by Agassiz in «Challenger»-Echinoidea
(Pl. XLIV. Fig. 38) is not quite good, as the end-tooth seems there to be constructed quite as the
tubular blade; I need scarcely mention that it is constructed in the common way. In the same place
is given a rather good figure of a tridentate pedicellaria (Fig. 39), the only objection is that the oblique
striz in the blade give a somewhat coarse idea of the little developed net of meshes in the blade.
The edge is thick with numerous small teeth, which in the lower part are placed in transverse series,
in the outer part irregularly. Ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarie of the common form. The
stalk compact. In the globiferous pedicellaria numerous spicules are found of about the same form
as in SAherechinus; the same form is also found in the tube feet, especially near the sucking disk,
together with bihamate spicules that are not branched in the ends.

According to Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 153) Pseudoboletia maculata Troschel is synonymous
with Ps. mzdiana. De Loriol (op. cit.) does not think them to be the same species, and Bell (53)
follows this opinion, and maintains farther that Ps. grvanudlata is identical with zzdzana. After having
examined a couple of specimens of Ps. maculata in British Museum I must also regard maculata as a
well distinguished species. The globiferous pedicellariz are as in szdiana, the glands of the stalk are
peculiarly lengthened and narrow, almost linear. (Whether this also holds good with regard to zzdiana,
I am not able to decide by the dried specimen in hand.) The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XXI. Fig. 1)
yield scarcely a sure mark of distinction from zvzdana; together with the large form (the head up to
r5™") where the valves join only in the outer half, a smaller, somewhat different form is found
(Pl. XXI. Fig. 17) where the valves join through their whole length. The ophicephalous pedicellarize
(Pl. XXI. Fig. 5) are peculiarly elongate with almost straight, finely serrate edge and little developed
mesh-work. It is, however, to be observed that on the buccal membrane of Ps. zzdiana ophicephalous

pedicellariz are found, resembling the figured one rather much, and as I do not remember, and have

ECHINOIDEA. I. IIg

made no note, whether those of Ps. maculata are taken exclusively from the buccal membrane or per-
haps also from the test, I do not venture for the present to put too much stress on this feature. The
triphyllous pedicellarize and the spicules show no difference from Ps. indiana. — The features stated
here, together with those mentioned by de Loriol and Bell: the size of the peristome and the slits
etc, and especially the peculiar coloration, which, according to de Loriol, is not found in szdiana,
seem to leave no doubt of the fact that they are two well distinguished species.

In «Rev. of Echini» Psewdoboletia like Spherechinus is enumerated as a subgenus of Strongy-
locentrotus, and at the end of the diagnosis (p. 455) it is thereupon said: «This is an interesting
genus, forming, as it were, a link between the Echinometrade and Echinidz; its position is. still
doubtful». In none of these statements I can agree with Agassiz. Pseudoboletia is neither a sub-
genus of Strongylocentrotus nor a transitional form between Echinometrids and Echinids, and its posi-
tion is not at all doubtful — it is a near relation of Spherechinus. It agrees with Spherechinus with
regard to the pedicellariz, the spicules of these, the number of pores, and the structure of the test;
only in two features a difference of any importance is found: the spicules of the tube feet are simply
bihamate (in Spherechinus a little branched in the ends) and — as the more important fact — the
buccal plates and the other plates of the buccal membrane are set with small spines and pedicellariz
(in Spherechinus only with pedicellariz), That the spines are a little longer and the test somewhat
more flattened than in Sfherechinus can hardly be used as a generic character. Thus it is rather
unimportant characters, by which Pseuwdoboletia is distinguished from Spherechinus; at all events,
however, the peculiar covering with spines of the buccal membrane seemis to be a sufficient reason
for the keeping of the genus, and nothing would be gained by uniting it with Spherechinus.

The genus Strongylocentrotus Brandt is in Rev. of Echini (p. 276) enlarged to comprise <all
species having a somewhat circular or subpentagonal, regularly arched or slightly depressed test, with
smooth, imperforate, not crenulate tubercles of unequal sizes, forming primary and secondary vertical
rows. Pores arranged in arcs of at least four to five pairs. Actinostome decagonal; very slight cuts;
buccal membrane bare; spines moderately slender, longitudinally striated, longer proportionally than
those of true Achznus, and more slender than those of Spherechinus». According to this diagnosis a
great number of species will be referred to this genus, viz. a/bws (Mol.), armiger Ag., depressus (Ag.), droba-
chiensis (Mill.), erythrogrammus (Val.), franciscanus (Ag.), Gatmardi (Blainy.), gibbosus (Val.), txtermedius
(Barn.), Zvzdus (Lamk.), mexicanus (Ag.), nudus (Ag.), purpuratus (Stimpson), fuberculatus (Lamk.); to
which are to be added some species which Agassiz, but no doubt wrongly, regards a synonyms, viz.
chlorocentrotus (Brandt), globulosus Ag. (according to Rathbun, 337. p. 274), and omalostoma (Val.);
finally a new species, dzz/latus, has been described by Bell (46). Further Spherechinus and Pseudo-
boletia are classed as subgenera of Strongylocentrotus. «The homogenous nature of the genus as now
limited cannot fail to be apparent», says Agassiz (loc. cit), A closer examination shows, however, that
this large genus is anything but homogenous. Apart from Sfherechinus and Pseudoboletia there
proves to be among the mentioned species at least 6 well characterized genera, which are to be
referred to 3 different families! Perhaps still other genera may be represented among the species I
have had no occasion to examine. I must grant Agassiz to be right, when he says that it is impos-

sible <upon the mere question of quantity or direction of the pores to subdivide this genus»; but for-

120 ECHINOIDEA. I.

tunately other characters are found which prove to be quite efficient, above all the pedicellariz and
the spicules. The species mexicanus, nudus, and globelosus 1 have not seen. The other species may
be divided into 5 groups, which I shall here characterize.

Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis (Mull.). Primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates; the
buccal membrane with rather few plates outside of the buccal plates, some of them thick carrying
pedicellarize; inside of the buccal plates there are more smaller, smooth or somewhat complicate plates.
The globiferous pedicellariz are highly characteristic, having a long neck provided with as well cir-
cular as longitudinal muscles, so that it may be retracted and stretched out (Pl. XX. Figs. 25, 29). The
valves have a tubular blade without lateral teeth; the stalk is tubular, its upper end with peculiar
ribs. The tridentate pedicellariz are very much varying as to form (Pl. XX. Figs. 4, 6, 20); the small
teeth on the edge may form beautiful transverse series; the ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize
show no conspicuous peculiarities. The spicules of the pedicellaricze and tube feet are branched in the
ends (Pl. XX. Fig. 12), otherwise most nearly of the bihamate form; simple bihamate spicules may also
be found. In the globiferous pedicellariz a dense series of spicules is often found along the outer
edge of the valves (Pl. XX. Figs. 25, 29).

The same peculiar form of globiferous pedicellarize is found in the species purpuratus (Stimps.),
intermedius (Barn.), franciscanus (Ag.) (probably), and chlorocentrotus Brandt. In S¢. purpuratus the
globiferous pedicellariz are distinguished by the uncommonly well developed articular surface (Pl. XX.
Figs. 14, 28); the stalk is strong, and seems to be compact. The tridentate pedicellariz resemble very
much the smaller form with the large indentations in drobachiensis (Pl. XX. Fig. 20), only the net of
meshes is a little more developed. — Of S¢. franciscanus I have only seen a large, fine, dried speci-
men in British Museum, and unfortunately I could find no globiferous pedicellariz on it; but as the
spicules of the tube feet are quite identical with those of drobachiensis, I have no doubt that also its
globiferous pedicellaricee agree with those of this species. The tridentate pedicellarize of very different
form; in this one specimen no less than three different forms were found corresponding to the three
forms figured from Str. drobachiensis. The larger ones have a strong net of meshes, the smaller ones
almost none. — Of S¢v. zxtermedius a fine specimen is found in the museum of Copenhagen (received
from the museum in Vienna), and further I have examined a specimen in British Museum. The two
speciinens prove, however, to be two different species, and it is not easily decided, which is the real
intermedius. As far as I can see from the description in «Rev. of Ech.» and in Sladen (365. p. 434)
the specimen in the museum of Copenhagen must really be zzfermedius. There are only four pairs of
pores in each arc, and the spicules seem all to be simple, bihamate. The tridentate pedicellarize
resemble those of «Spherechinus» pulcherrimus (Pl. XX. Fig. to). The specimen in British Museum
has also globiferous pedicellariz with neck and branched spicules.

Str. chlorocentrotus Brandt is by Agassiz regarded as synonymous with drodachiensis, but no
doubt wrongly. In the description of Brandt?) it is said among other things: «spine breves, virides,
maximz 4 linearum longitudinem vix superantes, latitudinem autem linece dimidiz partis eequantes».
(The diameter of the test is given to be r—*/,”). This does not hold good with regard to drobach-
densis. De Loriol (248) has lately described a species from Sitka, which he refers to Str. chlorocen-

1) Prodromus etc. p. 64.

ECHINOIDEA. I.

trotus. In our museum is found a small Echinid from Japan, received from the museum in Vienna
under the name of S¢r. ztermedius; this determination is scarcely correct, but it might agree with the
description of chlorocentrotus. At all events it is another species than that of de Loriol; it has four
pairs of pores, while Brandt gives 5 pairs. (That of de Loriol has 7—s pairs). In this specimen the
globiferous pedicellarize are as in drobachiensis; but the spicules are simple, bihamate. Nothing definite
can be said of Str. chlorocentrotus, until the type specimen has been reexamined.

To the species here mentioned, especially ¢ztermedius and chlorocentrotus (?) has to be added
<Spherechinus» pulcherrimus, of which I have received a couple of specimens from Prof. Doderlein;
some specimens of this species were further found among some Echinids from Japan, which Prof.
d’Arcy Thompson has sent me for examination. Of this species I shall give the following informa-
tions. A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates (as in all the preceding species and,
as far as I know, in all polypore species). Only four pairs of pores in each arc, as in zzfermedius and
chlorocentrotus (mentioned by Agassiz). Three ocular plates reach to the periproct. The buccal mem-
brane is highly pigmented, with numerous small fenestrated plates, some few of those outside the buccal
plates thick, with pediceilaria. The globiferous pedicellarie quite as in drobachiensis; of tridentate
pedicellariz a larger form is found (Pl. XX. Fig. 10), a little widened at the point and with rather
sinuate edge, and a smaller form, where the edge is straight or only very slightly sinuate. The other
pedicellariz show no peculiarities. The spicules are bihamate, not branched.

As none of the other species referred to Strongylocentrotus — and, upon the whole, no other
Echinids of «Zriplechinide» and «Echinometrade» that I know, with the exception of the Axthocidaris
homalostoma tk. mentioned below — have the same peculiar form of globiferous pedicellariz, it is
evident that the mentioned species form a separate group, while it is a less sure fact whether they
form also one genus. The species pulcherrimus, intermedius, and chlorocentrotus (2) are distinguished
from the others by having simple bihamate spicules, only four pairs of pores in each arc, and by the
very flat form of the test; in all of them the spines are very short, the primary ones very little con-
spicuous, also the primary tubercles are only little conspicuous among the numerous secondary
tubercles arranged in horizontal series. I am most inclined to interpret these species as a particular
genus (they form, perhaps, even only one species), which genus, if the mentioned specimen should
really prove to be identical with Brandt’s .S¢r. chlorocentrotus, must get the name of Strongylocentrotus.
The other species: drobachiensis, purpuratus, and francisconus, would then have to form a separate
genus, which, if the name of Strongylocentrotus is to be restricted to the above named species, must
get the name of Euryechinus Verrill). As long as we have no sufficient knowledge of the species
that has to be called Strongylocentrotus, viz. chlorocentrotus Br. it will be most correct to call all the
species mentioned here Strongylocentrotus, and leave the name of Euryechinus for disposal, if it should
prove to be necessary to use it.

Strongylocentrotus depressus (Ag.). Of this species I have received a specimen from Prof.
Déderlein, and another specimen I have found among the Echinids from Japan sent me for deter-
mination by Prof.d’Arcy Thompson. Accordingly I am able to give some informations of it, which

1) E. A. Verrill: On the Polyps and Corals of Panama, with descriptions of new species. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat.
Hist. X. 1866. p. 340.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 16

122 ECHINOIDEA. I.

may be found to be so much the more important, as the description of this species by Agassiz is
very unsatisfactory, and we have no figures of it at all. A primary tubercle is found on all the
ambulacral plates; the pore areas of the actinal side are much extended, a little petaloid; the two lower-
most plates have only three pairs of pores. Two ocular plates reach to the periproct. The buccal mem-
brane contains numerous lengthened fine fenestrated plates, only a few are complicate and carry pedi-
cellarie; a few small bihamate spicules in the buccal membrane. No spines on the buccal plates.
The gills contain the usual irregular fenestrated plates, but no bihamate spicules. The slits of the
test not large, but very distinct. The globiferous pedicellariz are as in Spherechinus, but here no
glands are found on the stalk. The tridentate pedicellarie occur in three different forms (Pl. XXI.
Figs. 8, 9, 15); between the two former of these transitions may perhaps be found, while no transi-
tional forms seem to be found between the latter two. The teeth on the edge form no trans-
verse series. The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize of the common form. The spicules
in the globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XXI. Fig. 14.b) are chiefly as in Spherechinus, only more length-
ened; those of the tube feet are rather much branched, but they belong, however, to the bihamate
form (Pl. XXI. Fig. 14. a); they are numerous in the abactinal tube feet, but very few in number in the
actinal ones.

It is evident from the features mentioned here that this species is not closely allied to the
Strongylocentrotus-species mentioned above. Its nearest relation, no doubt, is Spherechinus; but it
cannot be referred to this genus either; especially the strong extension of the pore areas on the
actinal side renders the referring to Spherechinus impossible, as in the latter no indication of such
an extension is found. The form is also very different from the high form of Spherechinus. ‘The
slits of the test, on the other hand, are scarcely to be used as a distinguishing mark, as they are not
much smaller than in specimens of Spherech. granularis of a corresponding size. A new genus must
be formed for this species, and for this genus I propose the naime of Pseudocentrotus.

Strongylocentrotus albus (Mol.). A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates; on
the lowermost ones there are only three pairs of pores. One ocular plate reaches to the periproct,
the others almost reach it. The buccal membrane with numerous, rather large, lengthened fenestrated
plates, some of those outside the buccal plates thick, carrying pedicellariz. No spines on the buccal
plates. The globiferous pedicellarize are very similar to those of Parechinus miliaris etc., but the apo-
physis ends far from the edge of the blade (Pl. XVII Fig. 5); there is a short, but distinct neck, only,
however, containing longitudinal muscles, not also circular muscles, so that it cannot be retracted
and stretched out as in Str. drobachiensis etc. The tridentate pedicellarize are very peculiar (Pl. XVIL.
Fig. 18), with a keel in the middle of the blade, which is short and narrow; the point is a little
widened with 3—4 strong teeth on either side. There are no transverse series of small teeth. The
ophicephalous pedicellarize are somewhat lengthened, but without conspicuous peculiarities; the tri-
phyllous pedicellariz of common form. The stalk of the globiferous and triphyllous pedicellarize
consists of long, slender calcareous threads, almost only connected at the ends of the stalk; the stalk
of the tridentate and ophicephalous pedicellariz is compact. The spicules bihamate, very few in
number,

With zr. albus must be classed the species gzbbosus (Val.) and dzllatus Bell. With regard to

ECHINOIDEA. I.

pedicellariz they are so very similar to a/bes, that herein scarcely any specific difference can be pointed
out. In gzbbosus, however, I have only seen a small form of tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XVII. Fig. 12);
but I suppose that also the peculiar large form is found in this species, and likewise may perhaps
the small form be found in the two other species, although I have not found it. It is, however, to be
noted that gzdbosws has only 4 pairs of pores, while the two others have 7—8 pairs; and so it would
be no strange thing, if its tridentate pedicellariz were different from those of the others. As in
albus only very few bihamate spicules are found. Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 444) states that three
ocular plates reach to the periproct; on the specimen I have examined («Challenger» st. 304, western
coast of Patagonia), no ocular plate reaches to the periproct. The same fact holds good with regard
to bullatus. (Of Str. bullatus 1 have examined the type specimens in British Museum, of adds a couple
of specimens are found in the museum of Copenhagen.)

That these species are nearly related is quite undoubtful, and it is as sure a fact that they have
nothing to do with the real Strongylocentrotus-species. They must form a separate genus getting the
name of ZLoxechinus Desor'), which has just been established for «Zchznzs» albus Mol. As already
mentioned the globiferous pedicellarize are constructed as in Parechinus (miliaris etc.), apart from the
short neck, and I must regard these two genera as closely allied, so that Loxechinus is chiefly to be
regarded as a polypore Parechinus. That the whole habitus of the Zoxechinus-species recalls Par-
echinus very much, speaks, of course, together with the other features, also in behalf of such a rela-
tion, although a similar habitus alone in no way can be regarded as a proof of near relationship
(comp. Pseedocentrotus depressus and Anthocidarts homalostoma).

Strongylocentrotus lividus (Lamk.). Of this species, which is so well known especially by the
examinations of Valentin, I can give no new informations; I shall only here mention the features
which in my opinion are of essential importance for the determination of its systematic position, but
which are generally omitted in the systematic descriptions. A primary tubercle is found on all the
ambulacral plates; in the lower ambulacral plates there are only three pairs of pores. In the smaller
specimens all the ocular plates are shut off from the periproct, in the larger ones one or two may
reach to it. The buccal membrane contains rather few fenestrated plates; most of those outside of the
buceal plates are thick, round, and carry pedicellarie; nearest to the edge a sphzridia may be found,
sometimes one more may be found farther in on the buccal membrane. There are no spines on the
buccal plates or on the other plates of the buccal membrane. To be sure Valentin says (Anatomie
du genre Echinus. p. 62): «il existe encore a la surface de la membrane buccale de petits piquants
microscopiques, dont la structure ne différe en rien de celle des piquants»; but I suppose it to be
stalks of pedicellarie he has mistaken for spines. On the figure to which he refers, no spines are
found, but only stalks of pedicellarie. ‘The globiferous pedicellariae are most nearly alike to those of
Parechinus. The blade is quite open with 1—1 lateral tooth (Pl. XVII. Fig. 19), but the edge is thick,
not thin and sharp as in Parechinus. There is no neck; the stalk consists of long, thin threads, only
little connected, except at the ends of the stalk. (Also in the other pedicellariz the stalk is con-
structed in this manner.) The tridentate pedicellarie are very peculiar with long, narrow blade,
coarsely serrate through the whole edge (Pl. XVII. Fig. 21); there are no small teeth. The ophice-

t) Synopsis des Ech. fossiles. p. 136.

124 ECHINOIDEA. I.

phalous pedicellariz have only a strong keel in the middle of the blade, as is seen on the figures of
Valentin; otherwise almost no net of meshes is found. The triphyllous pedicellariz of the common
form. The spicules bihamate; I have only found them in the buccal tube feet. — Otherwise I may
refer to Valentin’s excellent figures of pedicellariz and spicules.

Very closely allied to St. lividus is Str. Gaimardi (Blainv.); it agrees exactly with /ozdus with
regard to pedicellarize and spicules. Unfortunately I have not been able to find tridentate pedicellarie
on any of the three specimens found in the museum of Copenhagen, and it is just in the tridentate
pedicellarize we might expect to find the difference. I shall express no definite opinion as to the fact,
whether it be really the same species as “ividus, what Agassiz is inclined to think; at all events the
tridentate pedicellariz must be examined, before the question can be answered with certainty. The
peculiar, striped apical plates seem, however, to indicate that it is a distinct species.

It is a sure fact that these two species have nothing to do either with the genuine S/vongylocen-
trotus-species or with Pseudocentrotus; on the other hand they seem to be more nearly allied to the
genus Loxechinus, a rather great resemblance being found between the globiferous pedicellariz.
These pedicellarize, however, seem to remind more of the genus Zckinus itself, where globiferous
pedicellarize with quite open blade may also sometimes be found (Zch. Alexandri). Also the triden-
tate pedicellarize remind most of the long, narrow form common in £chznuws. As Loxechinus seems to
be a polypore Parechinus, so must also, I suppose, «Str.» lividus be regarded as a polypore form of
Echinus. That it must form a separate genus is not to be doubted. I propose the name of
Paracentrotus.

Strongylocentrotus tuberculatus (Lamk.). To the description of this species by Agassiz (Rey.
of Ech. p. 449) the following informations must be added. A primary tubercle is found on all the
ambulacral plates; two ocular plates reach to the periproct. The buccal membrane contains compara-
tively few plates, all those outside of the buccal plates, with the exception of the plates at the very
edge, are thick and carry pedicellariz. Inside the buccal plates a rather great number of small fenes-
trated plates are found. The globiferous pedicellarie have glands on the stalk; no neck; the valves
(Pl. XIX. Figs. 4, 13), are constructed as in Echinometra: with one unpaired lateral tooth, almost as
large as the end-tooth, but, of course, without a poison-canal on the upper side. The blade is tubular,
but not quite closed; the basal part is much widened with the fore corners a little produced in a wing-
like manner. The tridentate pedicellariz occur in two forms, a more narrow one (PI. XIX. Fig. 8) with
only little developed net of meshes, and a broader one (PI. XIX. Fig.9) with a well developed net of
meshes, the meshes of which are somewhat lengthened, especially towards the point of the blade. On
the lower part of the edge transverse series of small teeth are found. The ophicephalous and tri-
phyllous pedicellaria show no peculiarities. The stalk of the pedicellaria compact. The spicules
bihamate, also those of the globiferous pedicellaria.

Strongylocentrotus erythrogrammus*) and armiger correspond so exactly with faberculatus with
regard to pedicellarize and spicules, that a reliable specific difference is scarcely to be found in these
features; I have not, however, seen the broad form of tridentate pedicellarie in these two species.

That we have here a type which cannot be classed with any of the preceding genera, is

1) Not eurythrogrammus, as it is wrongly spelled in Rey. of Echini.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 12

on

evident; these three species must form a separate genus which gets the name of Zoxocidaris Ag.').
As the first species of this genus (of which no diagnosis is given) is named 7: Delalandi Ag. which
is synonymous with erythrogrammus (Rev. of Ech. p. 163); thus this species becomes the type of the
genus Joxocidaris. Agassiz is surely right when he maintains (Rev. of Ech. p. 450) that the some-
what petaloid structure of the pore areas on the actinal side is no valid generic character of Zoxo-
cidaris, but the peculiar globiferous pedicellarie leave no doubt of the correctness of the genus with
the limitation given here.

As a synonym of «Strongyloc.» tuberculatus Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 165) names zthocidaris
homalostoma \,itken?). I am so fortunate as to be able to prove this to be incorrect. The specimens
of Liitken are only naked tests, of which one is from China, for the others no locality is given.
Among the Echinids from Japan, sent me by Prof. d’Arcy Thompson, is a specimen, which with
regard to the structure of the test agrees so exactly with the specimens of Litken, that there can
be no doubt of their being identical. So I shall here give the necessary informations of this species.
The specimen in hand has a diameter of 30™", and is from Yokohama Bay. The primary tubercles of
the ambulacral areas are almost as large as the interambulacral primary tubercles. There is an
irregular series of small tubercles in the middle, and a similar one outside of the primary series on
either side; this outer series is formed of a larger and a smaller tubercle alternately, a larger tubercle
being found below on each ambulacral plate, and a smaller one above; besides some small tubercles
are found outside the latter ones, nearer to the pores. The interambulacral areas have a double series
of secondary tubercles between the primary series, and one outside on either side; just at the ambitus
two series are found outside of the primary ones, and all these tubercles form here distinct oblique
series. The colour of the test is grayish green. The spines are thick, evenly tapering, the longest
half as long as the diameter of the test; they are of a deep violet colour. Two ocular plates reach
to the periproct. The pore areas are rather highly petaloid on the actinal side, and as only a few small
spines are found nearest to the mouth, almost only tube feet are seen here. In the lower ambulacral
plates only 3 pairs of pores are found, above there are 8—g pairs. The buccal membrane contains
rather numerous fenestrated plates, of which some of those outside of the buccal plates are thick and
carry pedicellarie. The gills contain the common irregular fenestrated plates. The slits distinct. The
globiferous pedicellarize are as in Strongyloc. drobachicnsis with well developed neck (in the specimen
in hand I succeeded only with much difficulty in finding one small globiferous pedicellaria). The tri-
dentate pedicellarize (Pl. XXI. Fig.6) resemble much the narrow form in Zoxocidaris tuberculatus; but
also another form is found with the blade somewhat widened in the point, and with a more developed
net of meshes. As I have not been able to find a whole specimen of this form, I have given no
figure of it, so much the less as its seems that no great stress can be laid on the tridentate pedicel-
larice as specific characters in most of the S¢rongylocentrotus-like forms. No transverse series of small
teeth are found on the edge. The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize of the common form.
The spicules of the tube feet are very characteristic (Pl. XXI. Fig. 30), «biacerate>, a little curved,
generally with a rather strong point in the middle of the outer side.

1) List of Echinoderms etc. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. I. p. 22.
2) Bidrag til Kundskab om Echiniderne. p. 96.

126 ECHINOIDEA. I.

That this form is widely different from Zoxocidaris tuberculatus is evident from the characters
mentioned here; on the other hand the globiferous pedicellarize show that it is rather closely allied to
Strongylocentrotus. But the peculiar spicules and the petaloid pore areas characterizes it sufficiently
as a separate genus, which keeps, of course, the name of Azthocidaris. Lttken (loc. cit.) regards it
as identical with Echinus homalostoma Valenc.; I do not know whether this is correct, but it is so far
of no consequence, as this species will, at all events, get the name of Azthocidaris homalostoma. 1
suppose that this species has hitherto been confounded with Yoxocidaris tuberculatus, which it resem-
bles to some degree, and which is also said to oceur at Japan. 7: taberculatus, however, is indigenous
in the Australian seas, and until renewed examinations have corroborated its occurrence at Japan, |
must suppose a confounding with A. homalostoma to have taken place. As to habitus A. homalostoma
is very similar to Psewdocentrotus depressus, which latter has also petaloid ambulacra; but its colour
is (always?) brownish red, and it is somewhat more flattened. The examination of pedicellaric and
spicules will immediately show them to be two widely different forms.

Where the species S¢7. mexicanus, nudus, and globulosus are to be referred, cannot be seen
from the existing descriptions. The other species referred to Strongylocentrotus thus prove to belong
to no fewer than 6 different genera: Strongylocentrotus, Pseudocentrotus, Loxechinus, Paracentrotus,
Toxocidaris, and Anthocidaris, and it may perhaps even be necessary to divide the first one into two
genera. And these genera are excellently characterized, and so far from being closely allied, that they
are to be grouped into three different families. We can scarcely wish for a more striking proof of the
insufficiency of the characters that are taken only from the test and the spines.

Stomopneustes variolaris (lamk.). Of this very peculiar form I am able to give some new
informations; I have not, however, had material sufficient for clearing up everything that might be
wished for. — A primary tubercle is only found on every fourth or fifth ambulacral plate; each ot
these large tubercles spreads over more plates — but it is difficult to decide over how many, as no
boundary lines are seen between the plates; it may, however, be seen from the pores that the fact is
so, aS more arcs are found opposite to each tubercle. Two ocular plates reach to the periproct. The
buccal membrane contains numerous lengthened, fine fenestrated plates, of which a few are a little
complicate and carry pedicellariz. Small spines are found on the buccal plates. The gills contain
numerous, mostly three-radiate spicules (Pl. XVII. Fig. 13), but not the common irregular fenestrated
plates. The globiferous pedicellarize are of a quite unique form. ‘There is no end-tooth, but the blade
ends truncately with a long tooth in each corner (Pl. XVII. Fig. 17), sometimes two teeth on one side,
or that on the one side a little below the corner. These teeth have no poison canal, and upon the
whole no poison gland seems to be found (I have not, however, been able to ascertain this fact with
full certainty). The blade is open, rather flat, the apophysis ends abruptly without any widening
above. ‘There is no neck, and the stalk is very short and compact. This very peculiar, large, and
powerful form of pedicellarize is, unfortunately, very scarce; in the two specimens I have examined,
I have only been able to find one in each specimen, placed in one of the interambulacral furrows
near the ambitus. Besides another, smaller form of globiferous pedicellariz seems to be found, with
end-tooth and 1—1z lateral tooth, very similar to those of Paracentrotus hvidus; but I have not been

able to make quite sure of this fact. The tridentate pedicellaria are distinguished by the apophysis

ECHINOIDEA. I. 12

™“

continuing some way into the blade as a distinct, a little serrate crest (Pl. XVII. Figs. 16, 20); the
form is otherwise somewhat varying, as the blade may be more or less widened in the outer part; the
larger ones have a rather powerful net of meshes, the small have almost none. The edge is rather
coarsely serrate in the lower part, finely serrate towards the point; there are no transverse series of
small teeth. A form as that figured by Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. Pl. XXIV. 31), where, moreover, the
apophysis does not continue into the blade, I have not seen. Stewart (381) figures a valve of a
tridentate pedicellaria, and mentions this crest. In the same place he figures a valve of an ophice-
phalous pedicellaria to which I may refer; they are dentate in the edge to an uncommonly high
degree, although some difference is found in this respect, but I have not seen them with so smooth
edges as in the figure by Agassiz (loc. cit. Fig. 32). The ophicephalous pedicellarie have almost no
neck, as has already been observed by Stewart. The stalk, which is, like those of the other pedicel-
lariee, thick and compact, has a little constriction above. The triphyllous pedicellaricze are uncommonly
lengthened (Pl. XVII. Fig. 4) without teeth in the edge. What Stewart has taken to be triphyllous
pedicellariz (he does not figure them), I think to have been quite small, tridentate pedicellarie. «The
great variation in the size of these (the tridentate) pedicellarize, and the broad, spoon-shaped character
of their jaws make the smaller forms closely resemble the trifoliate variety and lend weight to Prof.
Agassiz’s view, that the latter are rarely (sic! — early) stages of the former» (351. p.g11). That there
can be no question of this need not be more nearly explained here, a reference to the informa-
tions given above with regard to the development of the pedicellariae, will be sufficient. The spicules
of the tube feet are very peculiar; along one side of the tube foot is found a series of large spicules
formed as long, fenestrated, thorny tubes; they are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the foot, and
are placed in such a way, that the upper end is projecting, while the lower end is covered by the
spicule following below. Towards the sucking disk the spicules become smaller, at last only flat, length-
ened fenestrated plates. On the opposite side of the tube foot is often — but not always — found
an irregular series of much smaller spicules more or less perforated. Stewart!) has given figures of
these spicules, to which the reader is referred; I have never, however, seen the large spicules branched,
as they are figured here, Stewart does not know in which species it is that he has found these
remarkable spicules; later (381) it has become clear to him that it is Stomopneustes variolaris.— Whether
Stomopn. atropurpurea Woods (447) is a separate species, or, as Ramsay (311. p. 11) thinks, only a
variety of variolarzs, I cannot tell with any certainty, as I have not seen this form, and the description
gives no information of pedicellarie and spicules. These structures must be examined, before the
question can be definitively decided.

Parasalenta gratiosa Ag. 1 can only give little information of this very characteristic form
beyond what has been stated by Agassiz, Liitken, and Stewart. A primary tubercle is found on
all the ambulacral plates; the buccal membrane contains numerous, rather large, fine fenestrated plates,
of which only a few are complicate and carry pedicellarie. No spines on the buccal plates. The
globiferous pedicellariz have a tubular blade, without lateral teeth. No neck; glands seem to be found
on the stalk, which is compact. The tridentate pedicellarize are long and very narrow, finely serrate
in the edge; they remind very much of those in Paracentrotus lividus, but the serrations are finer.

1) On the Spicula of the regular Echinoidea. Transact. Linn. Soc. XXV. Pl. L. fig. 1. 1865.

128 ECHINOIDEA. I.

No transverse series of small teeth. The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize without conspicuous
peculiarities. The spicules of the globiferous pedicellarize are bihamate, those of the tube feet of a
very peculiar form: biacerate, a little arcuate, with two small, axe-shaped projections on the concave
side (Pl. XXI. Fig. 32). — Parasalenia Pohl Pfeffer (314) I have not seen.

In «Revision of Echini» p. 423 the family Zchinometrade is defined as «having always more
than three pairs of pores to each are»; nevertheless Parasalenia is also referred to this family,
although it has only three pairs of pores in each are. Setting aside this contradiction is must be
admitted that when only the form and habitus of the test is taken into consideration by the deter-
mination of the relationship of the Echinids, Parasalenza must be regarded as an oligopore Echino-
metrid. The examination of its pedicellariz and spicules show, however, that it has no nearer relation
with the Echinometrids. The spicules remind most of those in Azthocidaris, but are, nevertheless,
very different also from these; also the globiterous pedicellarize recall those of Azthocidarzs, but are
distinguished from these by having no neck. Thus it is not too closely allied to Azthocidaris, but
it does not seem possible, at all events at present, to point out any nearer relation. That the struc-
ture of the spines is very different from that of the Achzmometra-spines (Mackintosh 265, Stewart
381) is a further proof that Parasalenia has nothing to do with Echzmometra; now, to be sure, we
cannot lay any great stress on some difference in the structure of the spines, when this character is
standing alone; but when, as in Parasalenia, it is added to other characters of more significance, it
will also get some importance.

After it has been pointed out that Parasalenza is no EKchinometrid, this form becomes of con-
siderable interest as proving a parallel development within two different families.

Echinostrephus molare (Bly.). Also this peculiar form is well known, especially Stewart (381)
has figured its pedicellariz with the exception of the triphyllous ones; accordingly only the most
important features are to be briefly mentioned here. A primary tubercle is found on all the ambu-
lacral plates; all the ocular plates are shut off from the periproct. The buccal membrane with rather
numerous fenestrated plates, not only opposite to the ambulacra (Rev. of Ech. p. 457); most of them
are thick and carry pedicellarie. No spines on the buccal plates; the gills with the usual irregular
fenestrated plates. The globiferous pedicellarie as in Achimometra with one large, unpaired lateral
tooth. There is no neck; whether glands are found on the stalk could not be decided with certainty,
as the examined specimen is a dried one. In the tridentate pedicellarize the blade is widened in a
somewhat spoon-shaped manner, rather strongly serrate in the edge in the outer part, without trans-
verse series of small teeth; only a little developed net of meshes. The ophicephalous and triphyllous
pedicellaricze of the common form. ‘The stalk of the pedicellariz compact. The spicules of tube feet
and pedicellariz bihamate. — Although this genus has most frequently trigeminate pores, it is also
referred to Echinometrade in «Rev. of Ech.»; this is no doubt correct, both spicules and pedicellarize
being as in Lchinometra. — Ech. pentagonus Yoshiw. (449) not examined.

To the genus Lchinometra are referred the species: /ucunter (L,.)"), oblonga (Blv.), AZathex (Blv.),

1) Lovén (252. p. 153) has definitively shown the common Westindian Zchinometra to be the Echinus lucunter of
I,inné; thus that species must keep the name, and the name of 2. suéangudaris (Leske) used by Agassiz (Rev. of Ech.) must
be rejected. The species from the Pacific for which Agassiz unjustly reserves the name of /wcunfer, must give up this name, and
in future be called Echinometra Mathai (Bly.), which name thus, according to Agassiz (Rey. p. 115), becomes the older one.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 12¢

van Brunti Ag., viridis Ag., and macrostoma (Ltk.). Whether the last-named one is a genuine Achino-
metra cannot be decided for the present, as only naked tests and loose spines are known. The other
species agree in the main features, also with regard to pedicellarize and spicules; so there is no reason
to enter into details with regard to the separate species, only a few features characteristic of the genus
are to be mentioned. A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates; no ocular plate reaches
to the periproct in Ech. oblonga and viridis, while in lucunter generally one plate, rarely two or none
at all reach to it. The buccal membrane contains numerous large, but fine fenestrated plates, almost
all without pedicellaria. Spines on the buccal plates. The globiferous pedicellarize have one unpaired,
strong lateral tooth, as Perrier has pointed out, and he has figured it in an excellent manner!). There
is no neck; the stalk is compact. In £. od/onga is found the peculiarity that the stalk has a joint in
the middle; in £. van Brunti the globiferous pedicellarize are very small, but otherwise of the common
form. The tridentate pedicellarize are narrowly leaf-shaped with little developed mesh-work (see Rev.
of Ech. P]l. XXVI. Figs. 9, 12—13); in van Brunt: they are of a quite different form, short, narrow,
a little widened in the point, and the blade quite filled by a complicate mesh-work (Pl. XIX, Fig. 21).
The ophicephalous pedicellarize with a rather strong mesh-work, a little different in form, although
upon the whole of the common structure; the triphyllous pedicellarize of the common form. The
spicules bihamate.

The genera /Veterocentrotus, with the species mamillatus (Klein) and ¢rigonarius (Lamk.), and
Colobocentrotus, with the species atratus (L.) and AZertensi Br. are most nearly allied to Lchinometra,
as is commonly supposed; the globiferous pedicellarize and the spicules are chiefly as in this genus.
A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates; no ocular plate reaches to the periproct.
The buccal membrane with numerous fenestrated plates several of which carry pedicellarize and small
spines as the buccal plates. The gills are in //eterocentrotus uncommonly well provided with fenes-
trated plates some of which even carry (triphyllous) pedicellarize; rather numerous small bihamate
spicules are also found among the fenestrated plates. In Colobocentrotus fewer fenestrated plates are
found, but also here they carry triphyllous pedicellaria. — Only in these two genera I have seen this
peculiar feature that pedicellarie are found on the gills. — In Colobocentrotus the globiferous pedicel-
larize are quite small and placed quite down among the flat spines on the abactinal side; the edges
of the blade not connected by cross-beams (Pl. XIX. Fig.s5). The stalk is curved. (In C. Mertensi
I have not seen the globiferous pedicellarie.) Of the tridentate pedicellarie in Heterocentrotus
Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p.665) has the remarkable expression that «the tridactyle pedicellariz are of
the type called trifoliate». I do not understand the sense of this expression; otherwise a rather good
figure is given of these pedicellarie in 77. mamullatus (XXVI. Fig.2). There is a striking difference
between the tridentate pedicellariz in mamzllatus and trigonarius. In the former (Pl. XIX. Fig. 15) the
blade is narrow in the lower part, widened at the point, with a pair of rather projecting corners; the
valves only join at the point, and are otherwise wide apart; in ¢rzgonarius the blade is of the common
leaf-shape (Pl. XIX. Fig. 35), with no widening at the point, and the valves join through their whole
length. In both of them the edge is very slightly serrate, but there are some larger indentations in
the narrow part of those of mamzllatus. Perrier (op. cit.) thinks that several Heterocentrotus-species

t) Rech. sur les Pédicellaires ete. Pl. VI.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. r. 17

130 ECHINOIDEA. I.

may be distinguished by the pedicellarize; after the material before me I must agree with Agassiz
that only two species can be distinguished: mamillatus and ¢rigonarius. But then these two species
may immediately be recognized by their tridentate pedicellarize (besides by the characters stated by
Agassiz |Rev. p. 427 seq.|). The tridentate pedicellarize in Coloboc. atratus are very similar to those of
/71. trigonarius; the valves join through their whole length (Pl. XIX. Fig. 1); in C. dertensii I have
not succeeded in finding these pedicellarie. The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellarize of the
common form. The spicules are bihamate; in AWeferocentrotus they are exceedingly numerous as well
in tube feet as pedicellarize, in Colobocentrotus they are very few in number.

Of the forms referred to «77iplechinide» we have still left Phymosoma crenulare Ag. Hemt-
pedina cubensis Ag. and mirabilis D6d. None of these forms I have been able to examine, so that
their place must for the present remain undecided. We may, however, draw same conclusions from
the existing descriptions. Of Phymosoma Agassiz figures valves of globiferous and tridentate pedicel-
lariee (Rev. of Ech. Pl. XXV. 4, 5) from which is seen that no lateral teeth are found on the globiferous
pedicellarize; whether a neck is found or not is not mentioned. The spicules are not known. A peculiar
feature is seen from the figures given by Agassiz (Rey. Pl. VII. a.f. 6, 8, 9), viz. that the pores form
arcs with alternately two and three pairs. As the figures cited are photographs, there can be no
doubt of their correctness, although Agassiz, as far as I can see, does not mention this fact. This
peculiar feature together with the crenulate tubercles renders it undoubtful that this form has
nothing to do with the genuine Echinids. Pomel (324) puts it down as the only recent representative
of «Les Phymosomiens», and readopts the name of Glyftocidaris, by which it was originally described
by Agassiz. I shall express no opinion whether it really is to be classed with «Les Phymosomiens»,
partly because my knowledge of these fossil forms is too small, partly because upon the whole I am
rather sceptical with regard to the possibility of referring with certainty the recent forms to the fossil
ones. Accordingly I agree with Pomel that the name of G/yffocidaris must be readopted for this
form, as the name of Phymosoma has originally been used of fossil forms.

Of Hemipedina cubensis Ag. are figured (Rev. of Ech. Pl. III. f6—7) a tridentate pedicellaria
and a smaller one which is stated to be a young tridentate pedicellaria, but which is rather a globi-
ferous or ophicephalous one; neither is given with sufficient details. The spicules are not known.
The perforated tubercles show, however, that this form has nothing to do at all with the other « 777p/-
echinide», Agassiz says himself that it is a Pseudodiadematid, but to refer all Psewdodiadematide to

Triplechinide» is by no means admissible, so much the less as these « 77iplechinide» prove to be so
heterogeneous that the genera referred thither must be distributed to three different families. Pomel
(324) refers it to «Les Pediniens» as the only recent representative, and he readopts the name of
Cenopedina by which Agassiz has originally described it. With regard to the name I must agree
with Pomel for the same reasons as stated above under Glyptocidaris crenularts. 1 shall not contest
that the referring to «Les Pediniens» is correct, but I must regard it as certain that it has nothing to
do with « 7riplechinide».

Having thus given a natural grouping of the species I shall have to treat the question of the
grouping of the numerous genera. That the systems mentioned above, which are chiefly based on

the number of the pairs of pores, give no impression of the real relation of the forms need not to be

ECHINOIDEA. 1. 121

pointed out more nearly. By an interpretation of the genera so confused as has been the case here,
it is of course impossible to have a clear understanding of the relation between them. Of the char-
acters hitherto used any greater importance can only be attributed to one, viz. the deep slits in the
test (Troschel, Pomel). The genera with deep slits in the test prove to be all closely allied. But
this character is no quite reliable one; partly it is a matter of degree whether a slit is deep or not,
and especially there is the unfortunate circumstance that the slits are always small in young’ speci-
mens, also in the species where they are deep in the adult ones; partly forms are found with small
slits, which are, no doubt, most nearly allied to those with deep slits (Gynnechinus). Then we have
left no other characters than the pedicellarize and the spicules, but they prove also to be excellent.
Of the pedicellarize only the globiferous ones can be used for the grouping of the genera; the other
pedicellariz are upon the whole very similar in all the forms treated here.

The simplest form of globiferous pedicellarize is evidently the one found in Parechinus; the
blade is open, the edges are not connected by cross-beaims, not thickened, and project in two or more
rather long teeth on either side. A quite similar form is found in Loxechinus, only here a short neck
is found, while Parechinus has no neck. — This form of pedicellarize is only found in these two genera
which form accordingly a separate group; they are very similar as to habitus, so that nothing seems
to be found that might prevent a putting together of them. — A somewhat more complicate form is
found in the genera Echinus and Sterechinus. The edges of the blade are thickened, and are (with a
single exception: Sterech. horridus and |rarely| Ach. Alexandri) connected across the inside by more
or fewer cross-beams. One or more lateral teeth are found on either side, most frequently there is a
tendency to obliquity in the outer end of the blade, just below the end-tooth, and frequently there are
two teeth on the stronger, a little projecting edge, and only one on the other, more straight edge.
This form of pedicellariz is only found in the two mentioned genera, and so they evidently form
another group; also the forms belonging here show considerable similarity as to habitus. — A simular
form of pedicellarize is found, however, in one more genus, viz. Paracentrotus; also here the edges are
thickened, with a tooth on either side, but they are not connected across the inside of the blade. It
seems that this genus, which is polypore and, with regard to habitus, very different from the other
genera mentioned here, must be interpreted as a somewhat farther relation of Achznws and Sterechinus.
In all these genera only simple bihamate spicules are found.

From these forms the development goes in two diverging directions: complete reduction of all
the lateral teeth, or strong development of the one unpaired lateral tooth. In Psammechinus, Toxo-
pneustes, Gymnechinus, Tripneustes, Spherechinus, Pseudoboletia, and Pseudocentrotus all lateral teeth
have disappeared, and the blade has become quite closed, tubular. Besides all these genera are distin-
guished by having small, thick, more or less dumb-bell-shaped spicules. There can be no doubt that
they form a separate group. The three first have regularly trigeminate pores, in 77ipmeustes the
young individuals have also regularly trigeminate pores, but in the adult the pore areas extend so
much, that they look as if they were polypore; but they continue as a matter of fact to be oligopore.
Spherechinus and Pseudoboletia are polypore, mostly, however, with four pairs of pores in each are.
As the uppermost one in the series of development we find Pseadocentrotus with 5—6 pairs of pores

where the pore areas are even somewhat petaloid on the actinal side.

132 ECHINOIDEA. 1.

The same form of globiferous pedicellariz is found in Strongylocentrotus, Anthocidaris, and
Parasalenia. The two former are distinguished by the globiferous pedicellarize having a well devel-
oped neck, provided with circular and longitudinal muscles — an otherwise unknown feature. These
three genera are likely to be rather nearly related; their spicules, however, show that the relation
is not very close. In Strongylocentrotus the spicules are a little branched in the ends, but otherwise
the original form is bihamate; in some species only (?) common bihamate spicules are found. In
Anthocidaris the spicules are biacerate, pointed in both ends and with a branch in the middle. A
somewhat similar form of spicules is found in Parasalenia; but in this genus the globiferous pedicel-
larize have no neck. Thus this latter seems to form a special group; its obliquity and the peculiar
anal plates indicate also that it must be interpreted as an aberrant form, of which the nearest,
although not very near, relations are: Anthocidaris and Strongylocentrotus. In the genera Helocidaris,
Echinostrephus, Toxocidaris, Echinometra, Heterocentrotus, and Colobocentrotus there is a strong, unpaired
lateral tooth on the globiferous pedicellariz, and they have all simple bihamate spicules. elioc¢daris
occupies a somewhat isolated position; its globiferous pedicellarize are not so much developed as those
of the other genera, it reminds to a rather high degree of Sterechinus Neumayert, but especially of
Pseudechinus albocinctus; several things favour the belief that Psewdechinws is really a transitional
form between Sterechinus and //eliocidaris, and the latter leads on again to Zoxocidaris, Echinometra
etc. Thus we have here a very fine series of development where, together with the peculiar develop-
ment of the globiferous pedicellariz, a marked tendency to obliquity is seen, reaching the climax in
the genera //eterocentrotus and Colobocentrotus. ‘There seems to be no occasion to separate these two
genera as a special group on account of their longitudinal axis not being placed in the same direc-
tion as in Lchinometra, because their pedicellariz and spicules are exactly agreeing with those of
Echinometra. It is constantly seen that spicules and pedicellariz are the most important systematic
characters, so that there is no reason for suddenly following a new principle here. The genera /seud-
echinus, Heliocidaris, and Echinostrephus must then be interpreted as more or less primitive oligopore
EKchinometrids.

Stomopneustes occupies a quite isolated position; its globiferous pediceliarize and spicules are
so peculiar and so different from what is found in the other forms mentioned here, that there can be
no question of classing it with any of them; it forms a special group.

The relation between these forms may most easily be surveyed in the following diagram. For
safety’s sake I shall expressly remark, however, that I do not mean it to be regarded as a phyloge-
netic one. I will in no way maintain that our Parechinus is the ancestral form of Achinus etc. but
only express my opinion that it shows the simplest structure of the jorgans most important with regard
to classification. We may in the recent forms scarcely find more than an indication of the way the
development seems to have taken. Now there is unfortunately only a small chance of finding these
fine structures in the fossil forms, so we shall hardly get so far as to be able with certainty to point
out the ancestral forms. Otherwise this survey of the relations of the forms shows clearly that here is
everywhere a tendency to increase the number of tube feet, a development from oligopore to polypore
forms. The most original feature, no doubt, is that all the ambulacral plates are well deveioped with

primary spine and three tube feet; then the primary spines disappear from every other ambulacral

ECHINOIDEA. I. 133
plate, and these plates become much narrower than the others, but keep their three tube feet. his
development is carried on in 7ripneustes and //eliocidaris, where the primary spine is wanting in more
ambulacral plates after each other. By this development there is made room for far more tube feet than
when all the ambulacral plates are typically developed and provided with a primary tubercle; but
there are constantly only three tube feet for each compound ambulacral plate. The same end is reached
by the fact that the ambulacral plates are made to consist of more than three primary plates,
that they become polypore. In almost all the groups both oligopore and polypore forms prove to be
found; only Parasalenta has no polypore relation, and in the Strongylocentrotus-group an oligopore
form is still wanting. It may not be thought unreasonable to expect that such a one will be found:

it is no far cry from S?¢r. pulcherrimus where only four pairs of pores are found.

Pseudocentrotus

Pseudoboletia Colobocentrotus
Anthocidaris Strongylocentrotus Spheerechinus Heterocentrotus

Tripneustes Echinometra

‘Toxopneustes Toxocidaris

‘ Gymnechinus Echinostrephus
Parasalenia Psammechinus Heliocidaris
= ———______ | Pseudechinus
Paracentrotus
Sterechinus
Echinus
Loxechinus

Stomopneustes Parechinus

The result of the studies of «Echinometrade» and « Triplechinide» represented here, is expressed

in the following system.

Fam. Stomopneustide n. fam.

The spicules irregular, more or less tubular fenestrated plates. The globiferous pedicellaric
without end-tooth') The stalk compact.

Only one genus known.

Stomopneustes Ag.

The pores trigeminate. Only every fourth or fifth ambulacral plate with primary tubercle, but
this tubercle is large and spreads over several ambulacral plates. The spines long and thick; small
spines on the buccal plates. The buccal membrane with numerous fine fenestrated plates, quite im-
bedded in the skin. The gills with numerous three-radiate spicules. A deep furrow along the median
line in the interambulacral areas.

1) Perhaps here may be found, besides the large globiferous pedicellaria without end-tooth (and without poison
gland?), a smaller form of globiferous pedicellaricee of the common structure. (See above p. 126).

134 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Species: Sf. variolarts (Lamk.), atropurpurea Woods (?).

Distribution: Indian Ocean, Australia. Littoral forms.

Fam. Echinidee Ag. (emend.)

Spicules bihamate. The globiferous pedicellariz with end-tooth and one or more lateral teeth
on either side; no neck; the stalk consists of long, thin, loosely connected calcareous threads. Mouth

slits small.

Subfam. Parechininz n. subfam.

In the globiferous pedicellariz the edges of the blade are fine, not thickened, and project into
two or more teeth on either side. No cross-beams connect the edges across the inside of the blade.

Genera: Parechinus, Loxechinus.

Parechinus un. ¢.

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane with
numerous fenestrated plates; they may be very large and thick, or finer and hidden in the skin. The
globiferous pedicellariee without neck. Numerous short, greenish spines.

Species: Parech. miliaris (Mull.), mecrotuberculatus (Blv.), angulosus (Leske).

Distribution: In the Atlantic Ocean at the European coasts, the Mediterranean; the southern
and eastern coasts of Africa; the Indian Archipelago, Australia. Littoral forms.

Loxechinus Desor (emend.).

Pores multigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane
with numerous fenestrated plates. The globiferous pedicellarize with a short neck only containing
longitudinal muscles. Numerous short, greenish spines.

Species: LZ. albus (Mol.), ebbosus (Val.), bullatus (Bell).

Distribution: The southern and western coasts of South America, the Galapagos Islands’),

Littoral forms.

Subfam. Echininge n. subfam.

In the globiferous pedicellarize the edges of the blade are thickened and commonly connected
by cross-beams across the inside of the blade. One or more lateral teeth on either side.

Genera: Echinus, Sterechinus, Paracentrotus.

Echinus Rond. (emend.)

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle on every or only on every other ambulacral plate. No
ocular plate reaches to the periproct. The buccal membrane with numerous fenestrated plates
imbedded in the skin both outside and inside of the buccal plates. The spines upon the whole long
and strong; the actinal primary spines not curved at the point. Globiferous pedicellariz generally
with the edges connected across the inside of the blade. The large, generally long and narrow,
tridentate pedicellarize with thick edge upon which numerous small teeth are placed in transverse

series or irregularly.

") The occurrence of LZ. a/éus at the Philippines and of g74éosus at the Fiji Islands needs corroboration.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 135

Species: Ech. esculentus 1,, acutus Lamk., melo Lamk., elegans Ditb. Kor., gracilis Ag

BY

A lex-
andrt Dan. Kor., luctdus Doderl., af/finis n. sp. atlanticus nu. sp.
Distribution: The Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean, the Pacific Ocean. Littoral-archiben-

thal forms.

Sterechinus Koehler (emend.).

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle on every or only on every other ambulacral plate.
The buccal membrane most frequently with numerous fenestrated plates inside of the buccal plates,
outside of these it is almost or quite naked. Generally one or more (all) of the ocular plates reach to
the periproct. The secondary spines often fine, silky; the actinal primary spines curved at the point
(always?). The globiferous pedicellarize generally with the edges connected across the inside of the
blade. The tridentate pedicellarize broad, leaf-shaped; the edge not thickened, only with a single
series of teeth.

Species: .Sterech. margaritaceus (Lamk.), horridus (Ag.), Newmayert (Meissn.), magellanicus (Phil.).

Distribution: The southern and western coasts of South America, the Antartic Seas. Littoral-

archibenthal forms.

Paracentrotus un. ¢.

Pores multigeminate. Primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane
with fenestrated plates both inside and outside of the buccal plates (outside, however, rather few).
None or 1—2 ocular plates reach to the periproct. The spines long and rather thick; the actinal ones
not curved at the point. In the globiferous pedicellarice the edges are not connected by cross-beams
across the inside of the blade. The tridentate pedicellarize long, narrow, without transverse series of
small teeth.

Species: Paracentr. lividus (Lamk.), Gaimardi (Blainv.).

Distribution: The Mediterranean and the adjoining Atlantic coasts. Brazil. — Littoral forms.

Fam. Toxopneustide Troschel (emend.).

The globiferous pedicellarize with end-tooth, but without lateral teeth; the edges of the blade
quite coalesced on the inside, so that the blade is tubular. Peculiar dumb-bell-shaped or somewhat
branched spicules are generally found in the globiferous pedicellariz and often also in the tube feet;
bihamate spicules are generally also found; in one form (S¢rongylocentrotus pulcherrimus) only biha-

mate spicules are known. Generally 1—2 ocular plates reach the periproct.

Subfam. Schizechininze Pomel (emend).

The spicules in the globiferous pedicellarize dumb-bell-shaped or small bows not pointed at the
ends. Generally deep slits in the test. The globiferous pedicellarize without neck; mostly with glands
on the stalk. The stalk compact.

Genera: Psammechinus, Gymnechinus, Toxopneustes, Tripneustes, Spherechinus, Pseudoboletia,

Pseudocentrotus.

136 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Psammechinus Ag. (emend.)
(Synonyms: Lytechinus Ag., Psilechinus Vtk., Schizechinus Pomel.)

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. Slits of the test rather deep.
The buccal membrane with numerous plates forming a more or less distinct plate-covering. In the
globiferous pedicellariz the blade is not much lengthened. The spicules dumb-bell-shaped, form no
border round the globiferous pedicellarize. The spicules of the tube feet bihamate, not branched. The
spines of a middle length, greenish.

Species: Psammech. vartegatus (Lamk.), semiteaberculatus (Val.), verruculatus Ltk.

Distribution: The eastern and western coasts of tropical America; the Indian Ocean. Lit-

toral forms.
Gymnechinus n. ¢.

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. Slits of the test small. The
buecal membrane, with the exception of the buccal plates, contains no fenestrated plates at all. In-
most in the edge of the mouth more or fewer irregular, needle-shaped spicules are found; also numer-
ous bihamate spicules are found, especially nearest to the edge of the mouth and the outer edge. In
the globiferous pedicellarize the blade is not much lengthened. The spicules of the globiferous pedi-
cellarize arcuate or slightly dumb-bell-shaped, form no border. Smaller, short-spined forms.

Species: Gymncech. Robillard: (Loriol), darnleyensts (Woods)*).

Distribution: Mauritius, Australia. Littoral forms.

Toxopneustes Ag. (emend.).
(Synonym: Loletia Desor.)

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle only on every other ambulacral plate. Slits of the test
deep. The buccal membrane with numerous fenestrated plates most of which are quite imbedded
in the skin. In the globiferous pedicellarize the blade is much lengthened. The spicules in the globi-
ferous pedicellarize are typically dumb-bell-shaped and form a thick, white border round the outer
edge of the valves; in the tube feet branched, bihamate spicules are found. Large, flat, short-
spined forms.

Species: 7) Arleolus (Lamk.), roseus Ag., elegans Déderl.

Distribution: The Indo-Pacific Ocean. Littoral forms.

Tripneustes Ag. (emend.)
(Synonym: //ipponoé Gray.)

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle only on every third or fourth ambulacral plate. The pore
areas very broad, so that the pores form three separated vertical series; in the small individuals the
pores are placed in the usual manner in short arcs. The buccal membrane with numerous fenestrated
plates most of which are quite imbedded in the skin. Slits of the test rather deep. In the globiferous
pedicellarize the blade is not much lengthened; the pedicellarie upon the whole small and darkly
pigmented. The spicules in the globiferous pedicellariz are typically dumb-bell-shaped; they
form no border. The bihamate spicules in the tube feet are not branched. Large, high, short-

spined forms.

1) Comp. above p. 110.

ECHINOIDEA. LI. 7

Species: Zripn. esculentus (Leske), depressus Ag. gratilla (1).

Distribution: Cosmopolitan in the warm zone. Littoral forms.
Spherechinus Desor (emend.).

Pores multigeminate (generally four in each arc); primary tubercle on all the ambulacral
plates'). Slits of the test rather deep; the buccal membrane with rather numerous fenestrated plates;
no spines on these or on the buccal plates. In the globiferous pedicellarie the blade is not much
lengthened. The spicules of the globiferous pedicellarie small bows, not pointed at the ends; they
form no border. In the tube feet branched, bihamate spicules are found. Large, short-spined forms,
almost globular.

Species: Spherech. granularis (Lamk.), roseus Russo, australie Ag.

Distribution: The Mediterranean and the adjoining Atlantic coasts, Australia. Littoral forms.

Pseudoboletia Troschel (emend.).

Pores multigeminate (four in each arc); primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. Slits
of the test rather deep. The buccal membrane with rather numerous plates carrying both spines and
pedicellarize; spines are likewise found on the buccal plates. In the globiferous pedicellariz the blade
is not much lengthened. The spicules of the globiferous pedicellarie small bows, not pointed at the
ends; they form no border. The bihamate spicules in the tube feet are not branched. Large, high,
rather short-spined forms.

Species: Ps. zzdiana (Mich.), macelata ‘Trosch.

Distribution: The Indo-Pacific Ocean. Littoral forms.

Pseudocentrotus n. g.

Pores multigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The pore areas some-
what petaloid on the actinal side. Slits of the test rather small. The buccal membrane with numer-
ous fine fenestrated plates; no spines on these or on the buccal plates. In the globiferous pedicellarize
the blade is not much lengthened. The spicules of the globiferous pedicellarie bow-shaped, not
pointed at the ends; they form no border. The bihamate spicules in the tube feet are branched. The
spines rather long and strong; the test rather flat.

Only one species known: Ps. depressus (Ag.).

Distribution: Japan. Littoral form.

Subfam. Strongylocentroting n. subfam.

The spicules of the globiferous pedicellarice bihamate (always?), generally branched at the ends;
no dumb-bell-shaped spicules, nor such as are not pointed at the ends. The globiferous pedicellarice
with well developed neck with longitudinal and circular muscles; tubular stalk.

Genera: Strongylocentrotus, Anthocidarts.

Strongylocentrotus Brandt (emend.).
Pores multigeminate; the pore areas not petaloid on the actinal side. Primary tubercle on

all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane with numerous fine fenestrated plates most of

1) Not examined in Sph. australia.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 15

138 ECHINOIDEA. I.

which are quite hidden in the skin. The spicules bihamate, branched or unbranched. The test more
or less flattened. The spines very different, from short and fine to long and coarse ones.

Species: Str. chlorocentrotus Brandt, pulcherrimus (Barn.), tmtermedius (Barn.), drobachiensis
(O. F. Miill.), pzerperatus Stimps., /raciscanus (Ag).

Distribution: The Northern Atlantic, the Arctic Ocean (dvobachiensis); the Northern Pacific

Ocean (all the species). Littoral forms.

Anthocidaris Liitken (emend_.).

Pores multigeminate; the pore areas somewhat petaloid on the actinal side. Primary tubercle
on all the ambulacral areas. The buccal membrane with numerous fine fenestrated plates most of
which are quite hidden in the skin. The spicules in the tube feet biacerate, a little curved, with a
rather strong point in the middle of the convex side. The test somewhat flattened, the spines rather
long and strong.

Only one species known: <A. homalostoma Lk.

Distribution: Japan, China. Littoral form.

Subfam. Parasaleninz n. subfam.
The spicules of the globiferous pedicellarize bihamate, unbranched; those in the tube feet bia-
cerate with a couple of small processes on the concave side. The globiferous pedicellariz without
neck; the stalk compact. Slits of the test small").

Only one genus known: arasalenia.

Parasalenia Ag.

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane with
numerous fine fenestrated plates; no spines on the buccal plates. The periproct covered by four large
plates. The test oblong. The spines long and strong.

Species: P. gratiosa Ag., Pohli Petter.

Distribution: "The Indo-Pacific Ocean. Littoral forms.

Fam. Echinometrid@ Gray (emend.)’.

The globiferous pedicellarie with end-tooth and one unpaired, strong lateral tooth; the edges
of the blade almost always connected by cross-beams across the inside; no neck. Only bihamate
spicules are found. Slits of the test small. The stalk of the pedicellarize compact.

Genera: Pseudechinus, Heliocidaris, Echinostrephus, Toxoctdaris, Echinometra, Colobocentrotus,
Hleterocentrotus.

Pseudechinus n. ¢.

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane quite
naked with the exception of the buccal plates. The spines of a middle length, slender. The form
of the test regular, Achinus-like.

1) Parasalenia Péhtii not examined.
2) The name of Echinometrada@ is linguistically incorrect (Bel]).

ECHINOIDEA. I. 139
Only one species: Pseudech. albocinctus (Hutton).

Distribution: New Zealand. Littoral form.

Heliocidaris Desml. (emend.)
(Synonym: vechinus Verr.)

Pores trigeminate; primary tubercle only on every second or third ambulacral plate. The
buccal membrane with numerous fine fenestrated plates hidden in the skin. No spines on the buccal
plates. The triphyllous pedicellariz with peculiar, digitate processes from the apophysis (in all the
other genera the triphyllous pedicellariz are constructed in the usual way). The spines short, strong,
greenish; the secondary spines club-shaped. The form of the test regular, Hchinws-like.

Species: //. chloroticus (Val.), rarituberculatus (Bell), australie Woods (2 — not examined).

Distribution: New Zealand, Australia. Littoral forms.

Echinostrephus Ag. (emend.)

Pores trigeminate, more rarely quadrigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates.
The buccal membrane with numerous fenestrated plates, most of which carry pedicellariz. No spines on
the buccal plates. The form of the test very peculiar, flat and broad above, narrow below. The spines
rather thin, black; those of the upper side long, directed straight upward.

Species: ch. molare (Blv.), pentagonus Yosh. (? — not examined).

Distribution: The Indo-Pacific Ocean. Littoral forms.

Toxocidaris Ag. (emend.)

Pores multigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane
with rather few plates most of which carry pedicellariz; no spines on the buccal plates. The form
of the test regular, Echznus-like. The spines rather long and thick.

Species: 7. fuberculatus (Lamk.), erythrogrammus (Val.), armiger (Ag.).

Distribution: Australia. Littoral forms.

Echinometra Rond. (emend.}

Pores multigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane
with numerous fine fenestrated plates hidden in the skin, of which only a few carry pedicellariz.
Spines on the buccal plates. The form of the test more or less oblong. The spines rather long
and thick.

Species: “ch. lucunter (1..), viridis Ag. Mathaet (Blv.), oblonga (Blv.), van Brunti Ag., macro-
Stoma (Ltk.) (?).

Distribution: Cosmopolitan in the warm zone. Littoral forms.

Heterocentrotus Brandt (emend.).

Pores multigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The buccal membrane
with numerous fenestrated plates, partly hidden in the skin. Spines both on the buccal plates and on
some of the plates outside of these. The test oblong. The primary spines exceedingly large and thick,
mostly edged; the secondary ones short, truncate.

Species: /Z, mamillatus (Klein), trigonarius (Lamk.).

Distribution: The Indo-Pacific Ocean. Littoral forms.

140 ECHINOIDEA. I.
Colobocentrotus Brandt (emend.).

Pores multigeminate; primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. The pore areas on the
actinal side petaloid. The buccal membrane with numerous fenestrated plates, partly hidden in
the skin. Spines both on the buccal plates, and on some of the plates outside of these. The test
oblong, flat. The spines very short, thick, truncate, form a dense mosaic on the abactinal side. The
spines on the ambitus longer, flat; those on the actinal side of the common form.

Species: C. atratus (L.), Mertensit Brandt.

Distribution: The Indo-Pacific Ocean. Littoral forms.

Incerte sedis:

Echinus multicolor Yoshiwara.

Toxopneustes maculatus (Lamk.).

Strongylocentrotus mexicanus (Ag.).

— nudus (Ag).

= globulosus (Ag.).

The system given here is, I think, in all essentials an expression of the natural relation of
these forms. To be sure, we must a priori hesitate before building up a system chiefly on so minute
things as pedicellariz and spicules. But the result is the best possible one: no undoubtedly connected
forms are separated; on the other hand, forms hitherto placed very far from each other in spite of their
great similarity as to habitus, are now put together (Parechinus and Loxechinus). That the boundary
line in one place is somewhat arbitrary is no important objection to the system — this will be the
fact everywhere, where transitional forms are found. The genus Psewdechinus is here referred to the
Echinometride; but there can scarcely be any doubt that it is also closely allied to the Echinide, it
seems especiallyto be a near relation of Sterechinus magellanicus. Here it has been referred to the Echino-
metride especially for practical reasons, it being then possible to give a quite certain character of
these two families: in one teeth on either side of the blade of the globiferous pedicellariz, in the
other only one unpaired lateral tooth. Pseadechinus forms the connecting link between the two
families, and it is especially worthy of notice that in this genus may sometimes be found an indication
of a lateral tooth also on the other side of the blade of the globiferous pedicellariz.

The family Zoxopneustide is sharply limited from the other two families, without transitional
forms. Objections can scarcely be raised against the subfamily Schzzechinine — all the genera
referred thither, are evidently closely allied. Less sure are the subfamilies Pavasalenine and Strongy-
locentrotine. Possibly the feature whether the globiferous pedicellarice have a neck or not, is not of
so great importance, as has here been supposed; but I think it impossible to decide this fact with
certainty, as long as only so few forms belonging here are known.

That no other outer characters are found in these forms, which may be used in the classifica-
tion, I think to be certain; both the test and the spines have been studied rather thoroughly, so that
anything new of importance is scarcely to be expected here. It is hardly probable that the inner

anatomical structure will yield systematic characters of any greater importance, but this question, at

ECHINOIDEA. I. 141

all events, deserves a closer examination. There is, however, one feature left, from which important
contributions to the classification may be expected, viz. the larval forms. As almost all the species
belonging here, are littoral forms, they may all be supposed to have pelagic larve, and they will, no
doubt, show a great richness in forms. That the larva of Spherechinus is so different from those of

Echinus}) indicates, at all events, that very interesting things may be found here.

Fam. Echinide.

Subfam. Parechinine.
11. Parechinus miliaris (Mill).
PII. Fig. 7. Pl. XV. Figs.6—7, 11. Pl. XVI. Fig.15. Pl. XVII. Figs. 1—2, 7—8, 1o—11, 14—15, 22—28.

Principal synonyms: Zchinmus miliaris Mull.

Psammechinus miliarts (Lamk.).
Echinus saxatils O. F. Mull.
— vtrens Dib. Kor.

Principal literature: Diiben & Koren: Ofversigt af Skandinaviens Echinodermer. p. 274.
Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 495. — Hoyle: Revised List of Brit. Echinoidea (202). p. 417.
Bell: Catalogue of Brit. Echinoderms. p. 150. With regard to the other extensive literature the reader
is especially referred to Bell’s Catalogue.

It is not necessary to give a thorough description of this well known species, I shall only
refer to the works cited above. On PIII. Fig.7 is given a coloured figure of the animal; with regard
to the test I shall refer to Pl. XV. Figs.6—7, 11, where the apical area, an ambulacral and an interambu-
lacral area are represented. From these figures it is clearly seen that the secondary tubercles form
no regular longitudinal or transverse series, and that a primary tubercle is found on all the ambu-
lacral plates. The buccal membrane is richly provided with large, thick, irregular plates, between
which the naked skin is seen, especially on dried specimens; they are constructed as usual (Pl. XVI.
Fig. 15; the figure represents one of the simplest plates from the outer edge of the peristome), con-
trary to what is the fact in P. microtuberculatus (P|. XVI. Fig. 14) where they consist of a compact,
greenish calcareous mass with funnel-shaped holes. The plates inside of the buccal plates are some-
what smaller than those outside and constructed in a far simpler way; they consist only of one layer
with some knobs on the upper side. The buccal plates carry numerous pedicellarize, but no spines.
The gills contain small irregular calcareous plates.

The pedicellarize. The globiferous pedicellariee (Pl. XVII. Figs. 1, 7, 23—24) are generally exceed-
ingly numerous, and form, as it were, a dense, white flue, especially on the abactinal side. The blade
is rather broad and flat, and the edges not connected by cross-beams across the inside. The edges are
not thickened, and project into — generally — 7—8 long, somewhat irregular indentations; the number
may vary between 5 and 10. There are often some more on one side than on the other. The stalk

1) Th. Mortensen: Die Echinodermenlarven der Plankton-Expedition. Ergebn. d. Plankton-Exped. d. Humboldt-
stiftung. II. J. 1898.

142 ECHINOIDEA. I.

consists of long, thin calcareous threads connected by small cross-beams. — Perrier‘) states that the
valves of the globiferous pedicellariz end in two hooks «situés sur le méme plan». This is absolutely
wrong; I suppose he must have interpreted the edges of the poison canal as two separate teeth. The
tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XVII. Figs. 2, 11, 22) with rather broad, not very deep blade; the outer
part, where the valves join, is somewhat widened and sinuate in the edge. The whole edge is serrate,
coarsely below, finely above, but there is only a single series of teeth, they form no transverse series
as in the Zchinus-species. The bottom of the blade is filled by a rather well developed net of meshes.
The apophysis has 2—4 rather large indentations at the upper end. The valves are rather wide apart
through the greater part of their length. In larger specimens tridentate pedicellariz are also found
on the buccal plates; they are smaller than the others, more spoon-shaped; the edge more straight,
and there is no mesh-work at the bottom (Fig. 2). According to Perrier (loc. cit.) the apophysis of
the tridentate pedicellarize is «découpé en un nombre assez grand de dents pointues»; as stated above
I have only found 2—4 teeth. The ophicephalous pedicellarize show no marked peculiarities; the blade
is rather narrow, with well developed mesh-work (Pl. XVII. Figs. 8, 28). The triphyllous pedicellaric
(Pl. XVII. Figs. 14, 25) are distinguished by the very finely rounded form of the blade. — The sphe-
ridiz (Pl. XVII. Figs. 26, 27) are quite smooth.

The spicules in the tube feet are very few, often quite wanting. They are bihamate, very
small (Pl. XVII. Fig. 10); just below the sucking disk they may be a little irregular. The spicules
figured by Perrier as belonging to this species, no doubt belong to S¢rongylocentrotus drobachiensts.
— There are no bihamate spicules in the gills or the buccal membrane, nor in the pedicellariz or in
the skin at the base of the spines.

It is a small species; a specimen of a diameter of 35™™ is uncommonly large. It is very
common in the Danish seas, quite down in the western part of the Baltic but not in the eastern
part. Along the coasts of Norway it is common, at all events to Trondhjem; further it is found at
Iceland and the Faroe Islands, but not at Greenland or North America. To the south it is found at
the coasts of Great Britain and along the Atlantic coasts of Europe quite down to Morocco. Bell
(Catalogue. p. 151) states that it is also found in the Mediterranean.

It is a pronounced littoral form, often found just at the beach; but it is common down to
ca. 50 fathoms, and may be found on still greater depths. At the Faroe Isiands I have taken a large
specimen on a depth of 100 fathoms; this fact, however, is a little uncertain. The locality is a little
range of the sound between Nolso and Qstnzes; it is not impossible that the dredge has got in on
more shallow water at the edge of this deep hole, so that the animal may have been obtained there.
It prefers hard, stony bottom.

Subfam. Echininae.

12. Echinus elegans Diib. Kor.

Pl. I. Figs. 2—3. Pl. III. Fig.4. Pl. XV. Fig. 4. Pl XVI. Figs. 3, 19. Pl. XVIII. Figs. 2, 3, 22, 26. Pl. XIX. Figs. ro, 26.
Pl. XX. Figs. 8, 9, I9, 22, 23.

Synonym: L&chinus Wallist Ag. (?)
Principal literature: Dtitben & Koren: Ofvers. af Skandinaviens Echinodermer. p. 272. —

') Recherches sur les Pédicellaires. p. 146. Pl. V.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 143

Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 491. — Wyv. Thomson: Echinoidea of «Porcupine» (395) p. 744.
Hoyle: Rev. List of Brit. Echinoidea (202) p.414. — Bell: Catalogue of Brit. Echinoderms. p. 154.

The form of the test rather varying, from evenly rounded to slightly conical, on the actinal
side evenly rounded or almost flat (in the conical forms); the edge of the mouth always somewhat
bent inward. The peristome rather large. The height of the test a little more than half the diameter;
the contour round.

The ambulacral areas (PI. XVI. Fig. 19) a little more than half as broad as the interambulacral
ones, at the edge of the mouth generally a little broader than the latter. The number of ambulacral
plates is rather constant, one third as great as that of the interambulacral plates. The boundaries
between the primary plates generally somewhat indistinct; the boundary line between the areas not

much sinuate. The arcs of pores rather steep; the pores reach quite to the edge. Sometimes four

I Diameter. | Largest breadth. | Number of plates.

Dia- Heiehe = | as | Longest
See Wort aia eae eee: | Ambula- |L-Ambula- | Ambula- | L-Ambula- || spines.
| | Peristome. | Periproct. | cral area. | cral area. | cral area. | cral area.

~- uu ——— u ———— = —

er a a ia i | _ —

51 27 | 17 5 | II | 20 || 2728 17—18

| I :

46 | 24 17 i || Io°'5 | 18 23—24 I5—16 231)

24) 20 14°5 4°2 8:2 14°2 21—22 I4—15

35 21 133 4 Tien) etal 21 14

31 18 12 3.5 | 20

30 18 13 | 45 | 7 | U1 18—Ig | I12—13 192)

All the measures are in millimetres.

pairs of pores are found in an are. The primary tubercles are rather large and strong, somewhat
smaller than the interambulacral ones, and form a very conspicuous, uninterrupted longitudinal series,
a primary tubercle being found on all the plates. They are placed very close together, the edges of
their scrobicular areas join through almost the whole area only the very uppermost ones are sepa-
rated. This fact of the tubercles being placed so close together gives to the test a very charac-
teristic appearance. The secondary tubercles may form a short longitudinal series on the actinal side
inside of the primary series, but this feature is not a constant one. On the abactinal side there are
only few secondary tubercles; commonly there is one small tubercle between the pores and the prim-
ary tubercle. Miliary tubercles numerous and rather strong; together with the secondary ones they
give the whole test a very rough and uneven appearance. (In the figures the miliary tubercles have
been omitted.)

The interambulacral areas (Pl. XV. Fig. 4). Also here the primary tubercles form a very close
series, the scrobicular areas, however, do not join above the ambitus. The secondary tubercles are
very numerous on the actinal side; they are considerably smaller than the primary ones, and form
no distinct longitudinal series neither inside nor outside of the primary ones.

The apical plates carry rather many tubercles (Pl. XVI. Fig. 3). The periproct is generally very

small (in the figured one it was larger than is commonly the fact), covered by numerous, irregular

i}

1) The specimen figured on PI. I. Fig.
2) The specimen figured on PI. I. Fig. 3.

2

144 ECHINOIDEA. I.

small plates; here and here a tubercle may be found on a somewhat larger plate. Nearest to the
anal opening the small plates are a little lengthened.

The buccal membrane commonly richly provided with large, simple fenestrated plates as in
Ech. Alexandri, those inside of the buccal plates also as in this species. Bihamate spicules may be
found in rather great number among the fenestrated plates. A few of the plates outside of the buccal
plates are larger and somewhat complicate, and carry pedicellariz. No spines on the buccal plates.

The spines of a middle length, '/,—?/, of the diameter of the test, rather strong; they are
largest at the ambitus, but decrease generally only little towards the apical area. The actinal prim-
ary spines may be truncate and flat at the point (not constantly), not irregularly widened as in
Ech. acutus.

The pedicellariz are generally very numerous, especially the ophicephalous ones. The globi-
ferous ones (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 2—3) have most frequently 2—3 teeth on either side of the blade, some-
times 3 or only one on one side, two on the other. The basal part has often a few indentations in
the edge, but this is no constant feature. The stalk is rather strong and may at the upper end have
some thorns directed downward (Pl. XX. Fig. 23). The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 22, 26.
Pl. XX. Fig.g): the valves rather broad, a little widened at the point, where they join; the edge is here
rather sinuate, in the other part it is straight, thick, and set with small teeth forming somewhat
irregular transverse series. There is a rather well developed mesh-work at the bottom of the blade.
— Together with this form is often found a smaller one (Pl. XX. Fig.9), where the blade is almost
quite flat and rather abruptly truncate at the point, without mesh-work. In some specimens only this
form is found. ‘Transitional forms between this form and the larger one are found, so that it cannot
be regarded as another kind than the larger form. — The ophicephalous (Pl. XIX. Fig. 10) and the
triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XX. Fig. 22) show no marked peculiarities. — The spheridiz (Pl. XIX.
Fig. 26) are generally somewhat grooved and thorny; the grooves often form rather distinct longi-
tudinal series. The spicules (Pl. XX. Fig. 8) are small and rather varying in form. They are pretty
numerous in the tube feet and gills; in the skin round the base of the spines some spicules are
generally found, and sometimes a few are found in the stalks of the pedicellarize (the globifer-
ous ones).

The typical coloration is as on Pl. III. Fig. 4: purple, white-tipped spines; the test white,
slightly rosy round the apical area (PI. I. Fig.3). In some of the specimens in hand this colour, how-
ever, is only slightly indicated; some are quite white, others have only a slight yellowish red tint
around the apical area or only at the base of some of the primary tubercles on the abactinal side. In

one specimen the test is of a fine lilac colour (PI. I. Fig. 2).

Ingolf» St. 1 (62° 30' N. L. 8° 21’ W. LL. 142 fathoms, Sand, Shells. Bottom temp. 7° 8). 1 spec.
_ — 47 (61° 32' — 13°40 — 950 — Mud. — aout) aoe
= — 52 (63°57 — 13°32 — 420 -- ? -- 7° 2). 2 —

54 (63° 08’ 15°40 — 691 - ? — 4° 2) 6 —

This species is indigenous in the sublittoral-archibenthal zone of the northern Atlantic, both
at the European and American side, as well as south of Iceland, and in the sea along Norway; it is

found on ca. 507—g50 fathoms. The statement that it goes down to 1350 fathoms («Challenger»-

ECHINOIDEA. I. 145

Echinoidea p.115) is incorrect (see below). Agassiz («Challenger»-Echinoidea p. 213) states that it is
also found in the Mediterranean, off Tristan d’Acunha and «Papua» (more exactly: the Admiralty
Islands), and these statements are adopted by Hoyle and Bell. I cannot dispute the occurrence in
the Mediterranean, as I have not seen the specimens upon which the statement rests; on the other
hand I must maintain that the other statements are incorrect, as I have examined the specimens from
Challenger» that Agassiz has determined as Ech. elegans (Chall. Ech. p.115). The specimen from
st. 46 (south of Nova Scotia, 1350 fathoms) is a large, fine specimen of Ech. Alexandri. ‘Those from
Tristan d’Acunha are likewise a large, fine form, very similar to Ech. Alexandri (the more long-spined
forms). Its narrow tridentate pedicellariz, however, show that it cannot be this species; presumably
it is a new species, which seems to be most closely allied to Ech. lucidus Déderl. The specimens from
st. 219 (the Admiralty Islands), on the other hand, are something widely different from ch. elegans.
There is an unpaired lateral tooth on the globiferous pedicellaria, and according to my observations
by the short examination during my stay at British Museum I feel inclined to think that it is nearly
related to Aréacina forbestana; at all events it is a sure fact that it has nothing to do with £ch.
elegans, and upon the whole does not belong to the family Achinide.

Thus a great uncertainty is seen to have been prevailing with regard to the interpretation of
this species. The description of Ech. elegans given by Agassiz in «Rev. of Ech.», does not agree
with this species, but with Ach. norvegicus, and the figure given (Pl. VII.a. Fig. 4) seems also to be
Ech. norvegicus; it is not, however, to be seen with certainty, as the specimen has been less well
preserved. — In conformity to this wrong interpretation of Ech. elegans Agassiz seems to have esta-
blished a new species, Zch. Wallis’, for the real Ech. elegans. As mentioned above (p. 100) I have
received a specimen from U. S. National Museum, determined as ch. Wadlisz, which is no doubt a
large specimen of Ech. elegans, only a little more short-spined than is usually the case. But I think
it must be regarded as a little doubtful, whether it is really Ech. Wadllisr. It does not agree very well
with the description of this species, especially must be pointed out that its pores are trigeminate as
usual in Echinus. But, according to Agassiz Ech. Wallisi is distinguished by «the arrangement of
the pairs of pores in sets of two» («Blake»-Echini p. 39). — It is impossible for me to decide how the
fact really is, but to judge by this specimen it is a sure fact that Ach. elegans is found off North
America, and that Ach. Wallis’ is either synonymous with it — but then its pores are trigeminate
and not in «sets of two» — or that it is a separate species with the pores in «sets of two», but then it
is no Echinus. At all events it is to be regretted that Agassiz has given a so deficient description
of a new species, and, moreover, has not given any figure of it at all.

Judging from the material of Ech. elegans we have from the Ingolf-Expedition, it is a very
varying form. If we compare the test of a subconical and a higher form, we might be led to sup-
pose them to be two separate species. But transitional forms are found, and especially no difference
seems to be found in the pedicellarie. For the present I must regard them all as one species, but
the possibility is not excluded that by means of a larger material we may be able to distinguish dif-
ferent forms. It is, however, I think, more likely that it will show a richness in forms similar to that
of Echinus Alexandri, in which case the Challenger-specimens from Tristan d’Acunha will perhaps
nevertheless have to be referred to Ech. elegans.

I
The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. r. 2

146 ECHINOIDEA. I.

13. Echinus Alexandri Dan. Kor.

Pl V. Figs. 2—3, 5—7- Pl XV. Figs. 13, 17. Pl. XVI. Fig. 8. Pl XVIII. Figs.9, 11, 19, 23, 25. Pl. XIX. Figs. 16, 31, 34, 38.
Pl XX. Figs.1, 2, 27. Pl XXI. Figs. 18—20, 27.

Literature: Danielssen & Koren (109). — Danielssen (110): Echinida. Norske Nordhavs-
exped. p.1. T.I. — Koehler (224226): Echinodermes. «Caudan». p.92. PII. fig.4 Pl. IL. fig. 18—19.

Of this large, fine species we have a very great material from the «<Ingolf», and as I have had
the type specimen of Danielssen for examination, I have been able to identify it with certainty.
Prof. Koehler has further sent me some of his specimens from «Caudan», so that I am also able to
corroborate the correctness of his determination. On the basis of this great material I shall then give
a new description of the species.

The test is much flattened, the height generally a little less than half the diameter of the test;
specimens of a middle size and smaller ones are quite flat above, the larger ones a little rounded. The
actinal side is flat, not at all or very little curved inward at the edge of the mouth. The slits as

usual small and rather indistinct.

5 | Diameter. Largest breadth. | Number of plates.
cc HSBhY len ae A eos | ee eens | eee
meter. | Peristome|Apieatarca| ctah tule, | "ieatea® | cf'ars. | “sat areas | SPINES
69. | 35 | a95 raga aeera a9 —«|_ 2324 | 15—16 || @.50
68 a i) 2) | \ | | ¢. 50
62 | 30 || 19 io || 12 | 26 | 24—25 | 15—16
45 ate i\ieeets 65 | | | 22
AS ie 24: 14 55 | 43
38 7 | 13 5 | | 25
34 155 | 12°5 ? | 7 135 || 16—17 I2—I3
31 15 105 | 4°5 68 12 | 16—17 | 13—14 |
BOW ald etd | 5 | | | 34
30 14°5 10 45 | | | 22
19 9 8 3. | | | 35
14 65 |i 55 2°5 | 14
13 | gS | a7 | 3 cee | See pile 9

All the measures in millimetres.

The ambulacral areas (Pl. XV. Fig. 13) in large specimens scarcely half as broad as the inter-
ambulacral areas, in smaller specimens a little more than half this breadth; at the edge of the mouth
the two areas are of about equal breadth. The number of compound plates in the ambulacral areas
is only about '/,—1/, time greater than that of the interambulacral areas, accordingly the ambulacral
plates are rather high. The arcs of pores are not placed very obliquely, in small specimens they are
almost perpendicular. In the type specimen the arcs of pores show a remarkable irregularity, as is
seen in the figures of Danielssen. As no similar feature is seen in any of the Ingolf-specimens it is
no doubt something abnormal. The pores reach quite to the edge of the plates. The boundaries
between the small plates rather indistinct, the boundary line between the areas rather highly sinuate.

The primary tubercles form a very conspicuous, dense longitudinal series; a primary tubercle is found

ECHINOIDEA. I. 147

on all the ambulacral plates. The scrobicular areas join on the actinal side as far as to the ambitus.
On the abactinal side the primary tubercles decrease very much in size. The secondary tubercles form
at the ambitus a tolerably distinct longitudinal series inside of the primary one, but they are con-
siderably smaller than the primary tubercles. There are generally a couple of small tubercles just
inside of each arc of pores. Besides numerous small tubercles are found on the actinal side, a few
ones on the abactinal side.

The interambulacral areas (Pl. XV. Fig. 17). The primary tubercles form a strong, uninter-
rupted longitudinal series, but the scrobicular areas do not touch each other on the actinal side; on
this side they are only little larger than the ambulacral primary tubercles, on the abactinal side con-
siderably larger. In large specimens they decrease only very little in size towards the apical area, in
smaller specimens, on the other hand, they decrease very much in size, so that the whole abactinal
side gets a strikingly smooth and naked appearance, the secondary tubercles being here also very few.
The actinal side is closely set with secondary tubercles forming a distinct longitudinal series inside of
the primary one, and the tubercles of this series may be almost as large as the primary ones. Out-
side of the primary series the secondary tubercles are scattered, not placed in longitudinal series. The
miliary tubercles are generally few in number and little conspicuous, so that they do not deprive the
abactinal side of its smooth character.

The apical area (Pl. XVI. Fig. 8) is most frequently somewhat raised, especially the inner edge.
The form of the apical plates show no peculiarities; there is generally a circle of tubercles along the
inner edge. In some specimens two pores may be found in one or a couple of the genital plates.
The periproct is rather large, covered by numerous small, irregular plates, among which the central
plate may be distinct; the plates nearest to the anal opening are a little lengthened, thick, irregularly
club-shaped. On specimens in alcohol only these knobs are seen nearest to the anal opening, so that
it looks as if the other part of the periproct were naked (Koehler 226. p.g4); in dried specimens the
whole area is distinctly seen to be covered with small plates. — In the description by Danielssen
the curious expression occurs: «the membranous portion (periprocte) is closely covered with round cal-
careous vessels»; this, no doubt, is owing to the fact that an erratum in the Danish text, «Kalkkar» in
stead of «Kalkkorn», has passed into the English text, which has thus got the meaningless expression
«calcareous vessels» in stead of «calcareous grains».

The buccal membrane contains numerous large, thin, highly perforated calcareous plates
(Pl. XXI. Fig. 27); those inside of the buccal plates are much smaller and almost without holes
(Pl. XXI. Fig. 18.a). There is a slight indication of a radiate arrangement of the inmost plates. Very
few or no bihamate spicules in the buccal membrane. No spines on the buccal plates; only in larger
specimens a few pedicellarize are found outside the buccal plates. The gills with the usual irregular
calcareous plates and a few bihamate spicules.

The length of the spines is very varying, as is seen from the noted measures; thus in two
specimens of a diameter of 45™™ the longest spines in one specimen are 22™, in the other 43"". In
some specimens the spines are even longer than the diameter of the test, as is especially seen in the
statements of Koehler. All the specimens of Koehler seem to have been long-spined; among
those from the Ingolf only a few long-spined specimens are found (especially from st. 78), in most

Ig”

148 ECHINOIDEA. I.

of them the spines are somewhat shorter than the diameter of the test, in some specimens even only
half so long. In conformity to the size of the tubercles the spines on the ambulacral areas are a little
shorter than those of the interambulacral areas. The actinal spines are blunt, a little flat, but not
widened at the point. In the more long-spined specimens the primary spines decrease only little in
length towards the apical area, in the specimens with shorter spines those at the ambitus are con-
siderably longer than the others.

The pedicellarize are most frequently rather few, especially the globiferous and tridentate ones,
sometimes one or the other, or even both of these forms are quite wanting in large specimens. The
globiferous pedicellarie (Pl. XVIII. Figs.9, 11) have commonly 3—4 teeth on either side of the blade;
the number is, however, varying from 2—5 teeth, and there is often an unequal number on the two
sides. The edges of the blade are commonly connected by some cross-beams, but sometimes they are
not connected at all, as in the type specimen (Fig.g9). That this feature can be of no greater import-
ance here, so that it might be used as a specific character, is sure enough, as in the same pedicellaria
one valve may be found with the edges of the blade connected by cross-beams, while in the others
the edges are not connected. Generally, however, the edges are connected, as shown in Fig. 11. The
basal part may be finely rounded, or with a single indentation in the edge; the apophysis is most
commonly a little serrate in the edge. In the type specimen the upper end of the apophysis has a
peculiar form which I have not found quite similar in other specimens.

The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 23, 25. Pl. XIX. Figs. 34, 38. Pl. XX. Fig. 1. Pl XXI.
Fig. 20) are very different from those of the other Hchinus-species. The valves are broad, rather flat,
without mesh-work at the bottom (except just at the end of the apophysis); they are full of holes
regularly arranged in beautiful arcs. The edges are often somewhat bent inward in the lower part,
where the valves are apart (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 23); in the outer part, where the valves join, the edge is
rather coarsely sinuate. The edges are thick, set with transverse series of small teeth; in the outer
part these small teeth are numerous and not placed in transverse series (Pl. XXI. Fig. 20). Generally
these pedicellariz are rather large, up to 2°5™™, but quite small forms may also be found, as the one
figured on Pl. XIX. Fig. 38. — Danielssen has not found the tridentate pedicellariz in the type
speciinen; the figure with regard to which Koehler supposes that it might be a tridentate pedicellaria
(Fig. 9), is a globiferous one, and even a tolerably good figure (Koehler has found no globiferous
pedicellariz in his specimens). The tridentate pedicellariz are, however, also found in the type
specimen; I have found a few ones, all rather small; on Pl. XIX. Fig. 34 is figured a valve of one of
these pedicellarie. They are broad and flat as in the other specimens, only the edge is not curved
inward in the lower part; this feature, however, is of no great importance, as in the same specimen
some pedicellarie may be found with inward bent, others with straight edge. As such broad, triden-
tate pedicellariz are not found in any other Hchiznus-species, they are of great importance for the
determination of this species. Unfortunately they are not rarely wanting.

The ophicephalous pedicellarize (Pl. XIX. Fig. 16) are generally very sinuate in the edge; the
mesh-work in the blade is not much developed. In some specimens together with this common form
another larger, more lengthened form is found with many serrations in the edge and well developed

mesh-work in the blade (Pl. XX. Fig. 27); they may be almost as large as the tridentate pedicellariz.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 149

All transitional forms are found between this large form and the small, common form, and the speci-
mens in which they are found, agree otherwise exactly with the other specimens, so that there can
be no question of interpreting them as a separate species, not even as a separate variety.

In the triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 19) the upper edge of the apophysis is most
frequently a little arched over the blade, which is somewhat broader than usual; this feature is, how-
ever, scarcely to be regarded as a constant, reliable character. — The spheeridiz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 31)
have some small spines at the end, no grooves. Spicules (Pl. XX. Fig. 2) of the common form.

With regard to the colour I may refer to the beautiful figure by Koehler (226. PL I. Fig. 4).

«Ingolf» st. 7 (63° 13' N. L. 15° 42' W. L. 597 fathoms. Hard clay. Bot. temp. 4° 9). 8 spems.
— - 42(6r°41' — 10°17) — 625 — Sand _- r ). 5 — ( rdoubtf.):)
-— - 43 (61° 42’ ro°rr — 645 — ~= — OF 7)err. 2 =
— - 44(61° 42) — 9°36' — 545 — Hard bottom. — Gaye de
— - 46(61°32' — 11°35 — 720 — Gray mud with stones.— 2° 3). 40 ( 6doubtt.)
— - 47 (61° 32! 13°40 — 950 —- Mud with Globigerina. 2°21) 80 (40 )
— - 49(62°07) — 15°08’ — 1120 — 2 — 3°3. 4 —
meen 5200557 == | 23) 32) 420, ? (ie) Sc
— - 53 (63° 15) 15°07, — 795 — ? 3° 0). 68 — (45doubtt.)
— - 54(63°08' — 15°40 — 691 — ? — (4°2). 10 —
— - 64(62°06' — 19°00’ — 1041 — ? = 3°1). 4 — ( rdoubtt,)
— = - 65 (61° 33/ 19°00’ — 1089 — Mud. 20a Ta, Ps (p )
SEO sat eae oe oe 199 =F = AE ea
Sen 93)(04368 = 34 50 7678 ? SPARS)
eR R95) OSE A fia 39) a 754 an ? aa ET) oe
So O58 24 208000 735 ? 9.0) ONS ae

From previous collections we have further a few specimens from 65° 39’ N. L. 28° 25’ W. L.
553 fathoms (Ryder), and from 60° 32'N. L. 4°20’ W. L. 525 fathoms (Wandel). — It has further been
taken by «Challenger» off Cape Cod and the Bay of Maine, 1350 fathoms (st. 46), one specimen from
this locality, by Agassiz referred to Ech. elegans (Chall. Ech. p.115), proving to be this species. By
«Caudan» it has been taken in the Bay of Biscay. Thus there can be no doubt that this species is
found in the archibenthal zone of the whole northern Atlantic; that it has not been mentioned before
is, doubtless, not owing to its not having been found there by the earlier expeditions, but to the fact
that it has been confounded with other species, elegans and, presumably, especially with norvegicus. —
Otherwise the ridge between Iceland and the Faroe Islands does not form the northern boundary of
this species, any more than of ch. elegans. To be sure only one specimen is known from the Nor-
wegian Sea, but this is, moreover, taken on a place, where the bottom temperature was negative
(st. 176. Norwegian North-Sea Exped. 69° 18’ N. L. 14° 33’ E. L. 536 fathoms. Bottom temperature + 0°2).
This, however, is certainly an exception; the mentioned station is just at the edge of the large, cold
depth of the Norwegian Sea. It is, no doubt, distributed on the smaller depths along the coast of

Norway, but in the cold area it certainly is not found.

1) The specimens here noted as «doubtful», are young ones, not yet showing the specific characters so distinctly
developed, that it can be decided with certainty, whether they belong to this species or to 2. affinis (see below p. 152).

150 ECHINOIDEA. I.

14. Echinus affinis n. sp.
Pl. V. Figs. 4, 8. Pl XV. Figs. 3, 10. Pl. XVI. Figs.6, 20. Pl. XVIII. Figs. 4, 16, 28. Pl. XIX. Fig.27. Pl. XX. Figs.17, 21.
This species resembles much ch, Alexandr’, together with which it is often found; a closer
examination shows, however, that several good characters are found distinguishing it from this species.
The test is generally evenly rounded on the abactinal side, but it may be almost as flattened as in
Alexandri. The actinal side is generally less flat than in the latter species; the edge somewhat curved

inwardly; the peristome rather large.

: Diameter. | Largest breadth. | Number of plates.
Dia) Height. | ee Ee |e are
meter. | | 5 | Ambula- | Interambula- | Ambula- | Interambula-

Peristome. | Apical sare cralarea. | cral area. cral area. cral area.

SSS == — = —— ————

38 | 22 | I | 55 Il 8 | 16 | 20—21 | I4—15

| |) | |

36 | 21 12 | el 8 | 15 | Ig—20 | I4—I5

26 | 13 9 | 5 xe | 10°2 | 17—18 | 12—13

24 | way Ml $8 4 laos | 10 | 16—17 | 12—z3

All the measures in millimetres.

The ambulacral areas (Pl. XV. Fig. 10. Pl. XVI. Fig. 20) generally half as broad as the inter-
ambulacral ones; at the edge of the mouth they are of equal breadth. There are */;—*/, time as many
ambulacral as interambulacral plates; in proportion to the size the number is a little larger than in
Alexandrt. The ares of pores are rather erect, they do not always reach quite to the edge of the area.
The boundaries between the small plates rather indistinct, the boundary line between the areas somewhat
sinuate. A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral plates, but they show a very peculiar
arrangement. In some specimens the two series are about equally strong, but then they are both very
irregular, large and small primary tubercles occurring among each other without any order (Pl. XV.
Fig. 10). It reminds much of Ech. norvegicus (Pl. XV. Fig. 16); but in the latter the principal series is
formed by both primary and secondary tubercles, while in Zch. affinis it is formed by primary
tubercles alone, as is sufficiently shown by their position. In other specimens the tubercles decrease
evenly in size towards the peristome and the apical area, but then the two series of the same area
are of very different size (Pl. XVI. Fig. 20). The largest primary tubercles are not much smaller than
those of the interambulacral areas. The secondary tubercles are very few and almost only found on
the actinal side; they are small and form no longitudinal series.

The interambulacral areas (Pl. XV. Fig. 3). The primary tubercles are large and strong; they
decrease almost not at all in size towards the apical area, but in the common way down towards the
mouth. The scrobicular areas scarcely touch each other on the actinal side, on the abactinal side the
distance between them is considerable, the plates being rather high. The secondary tubercles are very
few on the abactinal side, which has a similar naked appearance as in Ach. Alexandrit. On the
actinal side they are numerous, but form no regular longitudinal series inside or outside of the prim-
ary series, and they are far from equalling the primary tubercles as to size. The miliary tubercles are
generally little numerous; in some specimens, however, they may be so conspicuous as to deprive

the test of its smooth appearance.

ECHINOIDEA. I. ISI

The apical area (PI. XVI. Fig. 6) is generally somewhat raised, but otherwise of the common
form; also here sometimes two pores may be found in one genital plate, as in the figure. Only
2—3 tubercles on each genital plate, one or none on the ocular plates. The periproct rather large,
covered by numerous small, more or less knob-shaped plates assuming towards the anus a somewhat
lengthened form. No distinct central plate.

The buccal membrane with numerous fine fenestrated plates of the same form as in Lch.
Alexandri, sometimes also with rather many bihamate spicules. There are no spines on the buccal
plates, and none or very few pedicellariz outside of these. The gills with the usual irregular fenes-
trated plates and most frequently rather numerous bihamate spicules.

The spines are long and strong, but hardly so much varying in length as in Ach. Alexandrt;
exact informations of this fact cannot be given, as the spines are broken on the specimens in hand
(when they are not quite rubbed away). The actinal spines are not broad and flat at the point.

The pedicellaricze are generally not numerous, especially the tridentate and globiferous ones,
and as in the preceding species one or other of these forms may be quite wanting. The globiferous
pedicellarize (PI. XVIII. Fig. 16) have generally 2—2 lateral teeth, more rarely 3 teeth; sometimes only
one tooth is found on one side. Otherwise they show no constant difference from those of ch. Alex-
andri. Rather numerous cross-beams seem always to be found between the edges of the blade. The
tridentate pedicellarice (Pl. XVII. Figs. 4, 28) are very different from those of the preceding species;
the blade is very long, narrow, and deep with a rather well developed system of beams at the bottom.
The apophysis at its upper end spreads into a large perforated plate; most frequently a narrow,
irregular prolongation passes from it some way into the blade, being placed a little deeper than the
plate. The edge is as usual provided with transverse series of small teeth, perhaps a little less
numerous than in Ech. Alexandri. The valves are very wide apart, only joining for a little way at
the point, which is a little obliquely cut off; in this part the edge is slightly sinuate. The length of
the head up to 2°2™, The ophicephalous pedicellarize chiefly of the same form as in the preceding
species, only the indentations being perhaps a little less developed; the peculiar lengthened form that
may be found in Ech. Alexandri, 1 have not found in this species. The triphyllous pedicellariae
(Pl. XX. Fig. 21) of the common form. The spheridiz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 27) as in the preceding species,
but with fewer spines at the point, often quite smooth. The spicules (Pl. XX. Fig. 17) are pretty
varying in form; they are rather numerous in tube feet and gills, and sometimes in the buccal mem-
brane; at the base of the spines no spicules are found.

I can give no information of the natural colour of this species; all the specimens in hand are quite

bleached both on the test and the spines. It reaches scarcely to so considerable a size as Ech. A lexandri.

<Ingolf» st. 46 (61° 32’ N. L. 11° 35’ W. L. 720 fms. Gray mud with stones. Bottom temp. 2° 8). 8 spems.
— - 47 (61° 32" — 13°40 — 950 — Mud with Globigerina. - BOT) BT 9
— - 49 (62°07) — 15°08 — 1120 — ? = CRP s ae
— - 50 (62°43) — 15°07) — 1020 — Mud. — BOOS > 3\ ee
— - 52 (63°57' — 13°32) — 420 — ? -- 7? 2) 2 —
meee S55 CSe ea 5007 — 795. 2 a: BOs 2h ase
— - 64 (62° 06' — 19°00 — 1041 — ? — 201) f10\— =
= - 65 (61° 33’ — 19°00' — 1089 — Mud. — 30/3) 26 —

152 ECHINOIDEA. 1.

Accordingly the species has been taken in considerable numbers and on many localities, and
so it would be a remarkable fact, if it had not been taken before by any deep-sea Expedition. It
has also been taken, and surely numbers of times; it has only been confounded with other species.
I am able to substantiate the following instances: From U.S. Fish Commission (Smithsonian Institu-
tion) our museum has received 4 specimens under the name of Echimus norvegicus; they are typical
Ech. affinis. («Albatross». 1884. 39°35’ N.L. 71° 24'W.L. 1043 fathoms.) In «Challenger»-Echinoidea
Ech. norvegicus is mentioned from sts. 46 and 47 (eastern coast of North America, off Cape Cod); it is
also Ech. affinis. (On st. 46 it is taken together with Ach. Alexandrt, comp. p.149). Accordingly there
can be no doubt that this species like Ech. Alexandri is found throughout the archibenthal zone of the
northern Atlantic, and possibly it is still wider distributed. In «Challenger»-Echinoidea Echinus acutus
is mentioned from st. 170, off the Kermadec Islands in the Pacific Ocean. After having examined the
speciinen from this station in British Museum, I must positively assert that it is no Ech. acutus; on
the contrary it agrees with Ech. affinis with regard to the tubercles of the ambulacral areas and the
pedicellarie, and I have found no character, by which it might be distinguished from “ch. affinis.
Accordingly I must regard it as a rather sure fact that it is Ech. affinis; a more thorough examina-
tion will, however, be necessary in order to establish the fact definitively. — North of the ridges
between the Faroe Islands and Iceland, and between Iceland and Greenland it has not been found,
and at all events it is surely not found in the cold depth of the Norwegian Sea.

The species Ech. Alexandri and affinis, no doubt, are closely allied. As they are most fre-
quently found together, it is an obvious thought that they might possibly be one species with a
marked difference of sex, although such a difference is otherwise very unusual in the Echinids. Of
this, however, there can be no question, as I have found both 2 and ¢ among specimens of a@/fnzs.
There can be no doubt that they are two well distinguished species. The form of the test, the
tubercles on the ambulacral areas, and especially the tridentate pedicellariz yield excellent criterions
of them. But on the other hand it may be very difficult or quite impossible to distinguish quite
young individuals of the two species, the more important specific characters being not yet typically
developed. From the «Ingolf» we have thus a rather great number of small specimens, which I am
not able with certainty to refer to one or the other of the two species. They are badly preserved, so
that no tridentate pedicellariz are to be found. These pedicellarize are otherwise early developed, and
give then all desirable certainty in the determination. The tridentate pedicellaria seem not rarely to
be quite wanting in larger individuals, as may also be the case in Ech. Alexandr’; the determination
of such specimens will, however, scarcely cause any difficulty, as especially the arrangement of the

tubercles in the ambulacral areas then will be a sufficient criterion.

15. Echinus acutus Lamk.

Pl. I. Figs. 4, 7—8. Pl. II. Figs. 1—2, 6, 8. Pl. XV. Figs. 2, 14—16. Pl. XVI. Figs. 2, 5, 10, 16, 18, 22. Pl. XVIII. Figs. 1, 5—7, 14, 24.
Pl. XIX. Figs. 32, 36. Pl. XXI. Figs. 25—26.

Principal synonyms: Fchinus Fleming Forb.
- norvegicus Dib. Kor.

— depressus G. O. Sars.

ECHINOIDEA. I. I

tn
o>)

Echinus rarispinus G. O. Sars.
— microstoma Wyv. Thoms.

Principal literature: Ditben & Koren: Ofvers. af Skandinaviens Echinodermer. p. 266, 268.
M.Sars: Norges Echinodermer. p.92. Middelhavets Littoral-Fauna. p. rrr. — G.O.Sars: Nye Echino-
dermer fra den norske Kyst (Vidensk. Selsk. Forhandl. Kristiania. 1871. p. 23). Bidrag til Kundskaben
om Dyrelivet paa vore Havbanker. Ibid. 1872. p. 104. — Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 296, 489.
6. p. 77. «Blake» Echini (9). p. 39. — Wyv. Thomson: «Porcupine» Echinoidea (395). p. 744. —
Danielssen: KEchinida. Norske Nordh. Exped. (110). p.3. — E. v. Marenzeller: 269. p.13. 270. p. 20.
— Koehler: 217. p. 121. Notes échinologiques (221). p.20. 229. p. 23. —- Prouho: 327. p.8. — Hoyle:
Revised List of Brit. Echinoidea (202). p. 413, 415. — Bell: Catalogue of Brit. Echinoderms. p. 146—49.
With regard to the other literature the reader is referred to «Revison of Echini», Bell’s «Catalogue:,
and Iudwig’s «Die Echinodermen des Mittelmeeres» (256).

This species, I think, is the one that has caused most difficulties to the systematists. As
shown by the synonyms enumerated above, a whole series of species has been established on more or
less distinct forms of it; some of these, however, are now commonly regarded as synonyms, while
others (zorvegicus, microstoma, and partly Flemingit) are constantly mentioned as independent species,
although expressions as «critical species» (Wyv. Thomson. Op. cit.), «it seems almost hopeless to
attempt to distinguish the species of Echinus known as E. elegans’), E. norvegicus, E. melo, and FE.
Flemingti> (Agassiz 9. p. 39) sufficiently show the difficulty of distinguishing between them. The
best founded of these species is, no doubt, worvegicus, and so long as I had only examined the material
from the «<Ingolf»-Expedition, and what was otherwise found in our museum of this form, I also
felt persuaded that it was a distinct species. After having collected a considerable material at the
Faroe Islands during the summer of 1899, and especially after having received a considerable number of
specimens of all sizes from the Mediterranean from Prof. E. v. Marenzeller, I have got to the result,
however, that the whole can only be interpreted as one very varying species, among the numerous
forms of which three tolerably distinct varieties may, however, be distinguished: var. mediterranea,
Flemingit, and norvegicus.

The northern specimens are generally easily referred to respectively vorvegicus or Flemingit;
especially it seems that at the Norwegian coasts specimens are rather seldom found, which are only
with difficulty decidedly to be referred to one or the other of the mentioned forms. Most of the men-
tioned specimens from the Faroe Islands, on the other hand, it was impossible with certainty to refer
to one or the other variety. In the Mediterranean a third, very large form occurs, which I have called
var. mediterranea; it does not seem to be found in the northern Atlantic, but in return var. /Vemingit
is apparently not found in the Mediterranean. On the other hand var. vorvegicus occurs in both seas.
But in the Mediterranean this latter scarcely occurs as a marked variety; in the material received
from Prof. v. Marenzeller, at all events, all possible transitions were found between the genuine 707-
vegicus and var. mediterranea. 1m the first of the essays quoted above v. Marenzeller has referred
the specimens before him to EZ. norvegicus after a comparison with northern specimens of this form;
in the latter he has, on the basis of a greater material, referred the whole to Ech. acutus. I must

1) That Z&. e/egans is mentioned in this connection is owing to a wrong interpretation of this species (comp. pp. 99, 145).

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. r. 20

154 ECHINOIDEA. I.

decidedly follow v. Marenzeller in this, and further draw the consequence of it (what has not
expressly been done by v. Marenzeller), viz. that ch. norvegicus becomes synonymous with
Ech. acutus.

I shall here give the characters of the three most marked forms or varieties; but it is expressly
to be observed that all possible transitional forms are found, so that it will often be impossible to
decide, to which of these varieties some particular specimens are to be referred.

Var. mediterranea (PI.II. Fig. 8 Pl. XV. Figs. 14—15. Pl. XVIII. Figs. 5—6. Pl. XIX. Fig. 36).
The test high, conical, or more globular, somewhat flat, however, on the actinal side. The peri-
stome rather small, with the edge somewhat curved inward. The tubercles very small, considerably
smaller than in var. Flemingit (comp. Pl. XV. Fig. 15 with Pl. XVI. Fig. 2; both figures are drawn in
natural size, the former [var. medzterranca| accordingly from a much larger specimen than the latter
[var. Flemingit|). As usual they are largest at the ambitus, and decrease evenly in size towards the
mouth and the apical area. The primary tubercles of the ambulacral areas form regular longitudinal
series, but, apart from some smaller irregularities, they are only found on every other ambulacral plate;
the secondary tubercles form no distinct longitudinal series. In a considerable part of the middle of
the test the pores recede not a little from the outer edge of the area, leaving a very distinct naked
space between the pores and the edge, generally quite without spines. The primary tubercles of the
interambulacral areas are somewhat larger than the ambulacral ones; also here they are not rarely
wanting on every other plate for a longer or shorter way on the abactinal side. The secondary
tubercles are small and rather few; on the actinal side some of them are almost as large as the
primary ones, and form a tolerably distinct longitudinal series inside of the primary series, and in the
largest specimen in hand one more series is indicated inside of these. The tubercles outside of the
primary series are placed quite irregularly.

The spines on the abactinal side are rather few, short, and thin, those at the ambitus, however,
being longer and stronger; the latter are directed downwards like those on the actinal side, and they
are of such a length, that all the spines on the lower side reach equally far down with the point so
as to produce a quite even ambulatory surface (Pl. I]. Fig. 8); they are truncate, flat, and widened at the
point. The colour of the test is reddish, with more or less distinct, white stripes between the series of
tubercles; the actinal side white. The spines on the abactinal side are most frequently red or reddish
brown at the base, and white in the other part; of the actinal spines the outer ones are also red at
the base, and then white for a greater or smaller part, but thereupon a greater part of the point is
deep red, which gives to the animal a very peculiar appearance (Pl. II. Fig. 8). The innermost ones,
nearest the mouth, are quite white.

Var. Hlemingi (P11. Fig. 7. PIII. Fig. 1. Pl. XVI. Figs. 2, ro, 16, 18. Pl. XVIII. Fig. 14. Pl. XIX.
Fig. 32. Pl. XXI. Figs. 25—26). The test most frequently somewhat conical, sometimes more flat; the
actinal side rather flat, the edge of the mouth only slightly bent inward; the peristome rather large.

The tubercles large and strong. A primary tubercle is only found on every other ambulacral
plate; the plates where it is wanting, have generally two strong secondary tubercles, one out at the
pores, and one nearer the median end, accordingly one on either side of the primary series of tubercles.

Most frequently every other plate is regularly wanting a primary tubercle, but it may be wanting in

ECHINOIDEA. I. 155
2—3 or still more plates in succession. This, however, does not make the primary series look very
irregular. The secondary tubercles are very few; on the actinal side the largest ones form a rather
regular longitudinal series on either side inside of the primary series; here they almost equal the
primary tubercles in size. The pores reach quite to the edge of the area.

The primary tubercles of the interambulacral areas are considerably larger than the ambula-
cral ones; they form very conspicuous longitudinal series. The tubercles are largest at the ambitus,
but often they decrease only very little in size towards the apical area, but in the common way
towards the peristome. Most frequently a primary tubercle is wanting on a few or more plates near
the apical area; in the latter case, the plates, as in the ambulacral areas, are placed alternately with
plates provided with a primary tubercle. The secondary tubercles are rather few on the abactinal side,
and averagely much smaller than the primary ones; on the actinal side they are more numerous, and
the largest are of about the same size as the primary tubercles; they form a rather regular longitudinal
series inside of the primary one, and on large specimens one more series may be found inside, along
the very median line of the area, not, however, very regular. The tubercles outside of the primary
series form no longitudinal series. The miliary tubercles are rather numerous, but very small, so that
the test looks rather smooth.

The spines are not very numerous, nor very close-set, but upon the whole long and strong —
considerable variation is found, however, with regard to the size. The longest ones are found a little
above the ambitus; in some individuals they decrease only very little in size towards the apical area,
so that the uppermost spines are of about the same length as those at the ambitus, which gives to
the animal a very peculiar appearance. On the actinal side the ends of the spines, as in var. medz-
terranea, form an even ambulatory surface; they are likewise flat, almost all of them, truncate, and
a little widened at the point.

The colour of the test is white with a more or less broad, reddish brown band down the
middle of each series of plates (Pl. I. Fig. 7). The lower side most frequently quite white. The spines
are red, reddish brown, or greenish; brown for a smaller part at the base, the rest white; the actinal
spines are quite white. In younger specimens the red colour may reach almost to the point of
the spines.

Var. norvegicus (Pl. 1. Figs. 4, 8. Pl. I]. Figs. 2,6. Pl. XV. Figs. 2,16. Pl. XVI. Figs. 5,22. Pl. XVIII.
Figs. 1, 7, 24). The test generally much flattened, in larger specimens slightly conical. The peristome
highly varying in size, sometimes very small; the edge of the peristome generally much bent inward.
The tubercles rather large and strong.

The ambulacral areas are very characteristic (Pl. XV. Fig. 16. Pl. XVI. Fig. 22). The primary
tubercles form no continuous series; between every two plates with a primary tubercle one or more (up
to 4, most frequently 2) plates are found without such a tubercle. On these latter plates (those above
the ambitus) generally only one secondary tubercle is found, placed a little outside of the primary
series, and this secondary tubercle is most frequently rather large, almost as large as the nearest
primary tubercles. As a consequence of this feature the primary and secondary tubercles form
together one longitudinal series, which is very irregular, partly because the tubercles do not decrease

evenly in size upward, partly because they are not placed in a straight line. On the actinal side the

207

156 ECHINOIDEA. I.

primary tubercles form a more regular series, the secondary tubercles being here considerably smaller
than the primary ones, so that they here only to a smaller degree or not at all contribute to the for-
mation of the series of tubercles, and here often more plates in succession have a primary tubercle.
The pores reach quite to the edge of the area.

The primary tubercles of the interambulacral areas (Pl. XV. Fig. 2) form a very conspicuous
longitudinal series, in large specimens sometimes with a few interruptions near the apical area. The
secondary tubercles are very few and small on the abactinal side; on the actinal side, as usual, they
are more numerous, and some of them become almost as large as the primary tubercles. In larger
specimens they often, but not always, form a longitudinal series inside of the primary one; generally
they are much larger in one series of plates than in the other. Those outside of the primary series
are, as usual, smaller, but more numerous; in smaller specimens they are generally arranged in a
rather distinct longitudinal series, in larger specimens most frequently irregularly placed.

The spines are on the abactinal side rather few; they are long and pointed, especially in small
specimens, the interambulacral ones considerably longer than the ambulacral ones, corresponding to
the mutual relation of the sizes of the tubercles. On the actinal side they are, as usual, more close-set,
and, as in the two other forms, they are flat and widened at the point. The primary spines on the
abactinal side decrease only little in length towards the apical area; on the actinal side they decrease
very much in length towards the peristome; they do not, however, here form so fine, even an ambu-
latory surface as in the two other forms.

The colour of the test is in small specimens often very characteristic (Pl. I. Fig. 8. Pl. II. Fig. 6).
There are 5 large, red spots on the interambulacral areas, and 5 narrow ones on the ambulacral areas,
the boundaries between the areas are white. The spots reach to the ambitus, the actinal side is white.
On the apical area there is most frequently a rather regular, white pentagon whose corners are formed
by the ocular plates; thus the genital plates are white in the inner part, red in the outer part (with
the genital pore). The periproct generally slightly reddish (this coloration of the apical area occurs
also often in var. /lemingit). In larger specimens (PI. I. Fig. 4) the red spots often spread over the
whole abactinal side and some way down on the actinal side. The spines (Pl. I. Fig. 2) are generally
red or reddish brown on a larger or smaller part at the base; this colour passes evenly into a
greenish, at last slightly yellowish green colour. Often the spines are red in their whole length,
especially the ambulacral ones. On the actinal side the spines are more whitish or quite white; in

small specimens (PI. II. Fig. 6) the spines are only slightly coloured.

Beyond the features described here scarcely any character of greater importance for the distin-
guishing of the three forms can be mentioned. Therefore I shall treat the other features together.

The apical area (Pl. XVI. Figs. 5, 10) without marked peculiarities; in larger specimens rather
numerous tubercles are most frequently found, arranged circularly along the inner edge of the genital
plates. The periproct covered by numerous small plates the largest of which carry a small tubercle.

The size of the peristome is very varying, especially in var. zorvegicus. The buccal membrane
is smooth, but contains rather numerous simple fenestrated plates among which more or fewer

bihamate spicules may be found; the plates inside of the buccal plates are smaller, a little more

ECHINOIDEA. I. 157

complicate (Pl. XVI. Fig. 16), and the inmost ones show a radiate arrangement. There are no spines
on the buccal plates; a few pedicellariz may be found on the buccal membrane, especially opposite
to the gills.

The pedicellarie. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Figs.6, 24) have one lateral tooth
on either side, sometimes two teeth on one side, one tooth on the other; the blade is almost tubular,
the edges being coalesced to such a degree, that only a series of small holes are left in the median
line, and one larger hole just below the large end-tooth. The basal part is very varying in form,
with more or less projecting outer corners or with quite rounded edge. The apophysis is narrow and
often rather irregular in the edge with a larger, oblong or rhombic hole at the upper end. The size
differs very much; especially in var. /lemingit quite small pedicellarize may be found. In var. xor-
vegicus numerous spicules are generally found in the stalk and head of the globiferous pedicellarice
(also in the neck of the other pedicellariz). The tridentate pedicellarie (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 1, 5, 7). The
valves long, narrow, and deep; the upper end of the apophysis spreads somewhat, and forms a little
mesh-work in the lower end of the blade; a few narrow cross-beams cross the inside of the blade for
a shorter or longer way. The edge is straight, thick, and set with numerous small teeth, placed in
transverse series (Pl. XXI. Fig. 25); in the short part at the point where the valves join, the edge is
more or less coarsely serrate. They may be very long, up to 2°5™™ (the length of the head). The
ophicephalous pedicellarize (Pl. XTX. Fig. 36) as well as the triphyllous ones without any characteristic
peculiarities. — The spheeridie (Pl. XIX. Fig. 32) rather much grooved at the point. — The spicules
(Pl. XVIII. Fig. 14) of the common form, numerous, especially in the abactinal tube feet; they are also
found in rather great numbers in the skin round the base of the spines, and even some way out on
the spines, in the gills, and in the buccal membrane: in the gills together with the common irregular
fenestrated plates. Also in the pedicellariz they may be found, especially in var. zorvegicus. Some-
times a few S-shaped spicules may be found among the common bihamate ones.

Synonymous with this species are Echinus rarispinus G. O. Sars, depressus G. O. Sars, and
microstoma \Wyv. Thomson. The two former have already in «Rev. of Ech.» by Agassiz correctly
been referred to Ech. norvegicus. Of Ech. rarispinus Danielssen (110. p. 4) says that if it be no
distinct species «it is at all events a well-marked variety that seems to work its way up to an inde-
pendent species». By the kindness of Prof.Collett I have from the museum of Christiania got some
typical specimens of Ech. rarispimus for examination; I can see no other thing but that they are large
specimens of var. xorvegicus. PI.II. Fig.2 may so far be taken as an «&ch. rartspinus», but there is
no reason to keep up this form as a special variety. Neither can I feel quite persuaded that the
small specimens with the characteristic red spots (Pl. IJ. Fig.6) may be said to be representatives of
a dwarfish variety degenerated by its confined life in the fjords» (Danielssen loc. cit.), as itis a fact
that it is not confined to the fjords, but is also found in the midst of the Cattegat and Skager Rack;
also from the Mediterranean and from the Bay of Biscay I have seen quite typical specimens. ‘They
are scarcely anything else than young specimens of Ech. acutus. It is, however, to be observed that
such small specimens of a diameter of ca. '/,“ may be sexually ripe, as pointed out by G. O. Sars’),
and as I have also substantiated on specimens from the Cattegat. We have no proof that these small,

1) Forhandl. i Vidensk. Selsk. Christiania. 1872. p. 106.

158 ECHINOIDEA. 1.
sexually ripe individuals later grow to become large “chk. acutus of one or another form. Upon the
whole we know next to nothing of the biology of these animals.

Echinus microstoma Wyv. Thomson (395. p. 744), of which Prof. Bell has sent me a couple of
specimens, is only by its uncommonly small peristome distinguished from ch. acutus var. norvegicus,
in all the other respects it agrees completely with this latter. As there is, however, great variation
with regard to the size of the peristome in xorvegicus, I can in «Ech. microstoma» see nothing but a
good norvegicus. The strong red colour and the thinness of the test, pointed out by Wyv. Thomson
and Bell (Catalogue p.149) as characters of Zech. microstoma, are as well found in typical norvegicus.

Whether £ch. melo can be kept up as a distinct species, I do not venture to say with certainty,
as I have only had a slight material of it for examination; but I am inclined also to regard this form
as a mere variety of Zch. acutus. Large specimens, to be sure, are very characteristic; but this holds
also good with regard to Ech. acutus var. mediterranea, and I think it to be very doubtful, whether
the smaller specimens may be distinguished with certainty. Koehler (221) has exactly enumerated
the characters by which Zch. acutus and melo are distinguished. The most important one is the fact
that in melo only every other interambulacral plate above the ambitus has a primary tubercle, while
in acutus they have all such a tubercle — with the exception of the’ part near the apical area, where
it is also wanting on every other plate; in some specimens the latter arrangement may even reach
down almost to the ambitus. Thus this character is rather unreliable. Koehler finds another char-
acter of importance in the tridentate pedicellarize, the edge of which is in me/o highly serrate, in acetus
almost smooth. According to my examinations, however, this feature is not at all constant; they may
be thorny also in acwtfus and smooth in melo. (The «thorns» are in reality transverse series of small
teeth, as usual in the c/znws-species). The other characters pointed out by Koehler, seem to me to
be of slight importance. I may further mention that the globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 18)
are most frequently distinguished by the apophysis being peculiarly rugged or spinous above, and that
the spicules are somewhat larger than usual (Pl. XVIII. Fig.8). As in acuwtus a primary tubercle is
only found on every other ambulacral plate, in several places even on every third plate only, and as
in Ech. acutus var. mediterranea the pores are rather much removed from the edge of the ambulacral
area. — Thus I can see no one character by which &ch. melo is decidedly distinguished from aczfes,
and accordingly it can scarcely be maintained as a distinct species, but only as a variety of aceutus,
characterized by its almost globular form, its green spines, and the peculiar coloration of the test.

Of Ech. acutus we have a rather great number of specimens, all of var. norvegicus, or at all
events more nearly belonging to this variety, from the following stations (on the southern and western

side of Iceland, the Denmark Strait):

St. 8 (63°56'N. L. 24° go’ W. L. 136fms. Bottom temp. 6° 4). 1 specimen.

9 (64° 18’ — 27°00! — 295 — CRA 2 -

16 (65° 28’ 273050 — a 25On— — 654).
ACR YE 13° 32 = 420; — 7° 2). 2

54 (63°08’ — 15°40! — 601 Ane) =

85 (63° 22' — 25° 21' — 170 Pen Ay :

87 (65° 02’ 23°58 — 110 Pee) Sone —

98 (65° 37’ 26° 27 — 138 — 622) east --

ECHINOIDEA. 1. 159

Further it has been taken on 63° 30’ N. L. 13° 39’ W. L. 92 fathoms (Wandel. 1890).

Otherwise this species occurs in the North-European seas up to north of Norway, at the British
coasts, along South Europe into the Mediterranean; whether it is also found at the Azores is for
the present uncertain (Koehler. 229. p. 23). It is found on depths between ca. 20—ca. 700 fathoms.
Although in the Norwegian North Sea Expedition it is noted from a couple of stations with negative
bottom temperature, its home must doubtless be said to be the warmer regions with positive bottom
temperature. It does not occur in the cold area of the Norwegian Sea.

According to the statements given in the literature it is much wider distributed, is cosmo-
politan, and ranges to a depth of 2435 fathoms (Chall. Ech. p. 213—14). As has already repeatedly
been shown above, many of these statements are founded on wrong determinations, and to judge by
these there is all probability that also the other statements, according to which Ach. acutus (or nor-
vegicus) is said to occur outside of the territory stated above, are founded on wrong determinations.
The places from which it is mentioned are: the eastern coast of North America to Florida, Ascension,
the western coast of Patagonia, the Kermadec Islands, and Japan. As to the occurrence at the Atlantic
coasts of North America, I cannot, of course, control the numerous statements of Ach. norvegicus being
found there; but the specimens that our museum has received from U.S. National Museum under
the name of “Ach. norvegicus, at all events, are not this species, but /ch. af/fnis, and the statements in
Chall. Ech. p. 117 that Ach. norvegicus has been taken on sts. 46 and 47 (off Cape Cod) are also founded
on wrong determinations, what I have had occasion to substantiate during my stay at British Museum
— these specimens are also £ch. affints. Also Ech. acutus is in Chall. Ech. (p.115) mentioned from
the same place (st. 46); to be sure, I ‘have not seen the specimens upon which this statement is
founded, but considering how it is with «Ach. norvegicus» from the same station, and as the statement
of Ech. elegans being found at the same place is also founded on a wrong determination (it is Zcf.
Alexandrt), Y think it best to remain sceptical with regard to «&ch. acufus» from st. 46 — and upon
the whole with regard to all statements of the occurrence of this species off North America. The
specimens from Ascension (Chall. st. 343) referred by Agassiz to Ech. acutus belong to another, new
species, described above (p. 100) by the name of Ach. atlanticus.

From the western coast of Patagonia (Chall. st. 308) Agassiz mentions &c/. norvegicus; im
British Museum I have seen the specimens upon which this statement is founded; they are two
different species, viz. Sterechinus magellanicus and an Lchinus-species, probably a new one, but at all
events closely allied to “ch. elegans, accordingly belonging to another group of species than £ch.
acutus. From the Kermadec Islands (Chall. st. 170) Ech. acutus is mentioned; it is a large, fine
specimen of Ech. affinis, as far as I was able to decide by a short examination; at all events it has
nothing to do with Ech. acutus. With regard to the occurrence of this species at Japan, finally, Zev.
norvegicus 1s in Chall. Ech. (p. 117) mentioned from this locality (sts. 232 and 235); I have seen two
specimens from st. 232, which are, no doubt, Ech. ducidus Déderl. No more than all the above men-
tioned specimens they have anything to do with Ach. norvegicus. I have not seen the specimens
from st. 235, but there can, I think, scarcely be any doubt that they are the same species as those
from st. 232. — With this I think that the pretended enormous distribution of Ech. acutus is refuted.

As far as we hitherto know, it occurs only in the North-European seas and the Mediterranean.

160 ECHINOIDEA. I.

16. Echinus esculentus L.

PLI. Fig.9. Pl. Ill. Fig. 3. Pl. XV. Figs. 1, 5. Pl. XVI. Figs.7, 12. Pl. XVIII. Figs. 12, 13, 20. Pl XIX. Figs. 24, 28, 30.
Pl. XX. Figs. 24, 30.

Principal synonyms: Echinus sphera O. F. Miller.

- Schwartz Nilsson & Holst.

Principal literature: Sv. Nilsson & A. L. Holst: Collectanea Zoologiz scandinavice. Lund.
1817. p. 7. — Diiben & Koren: Ofvers. af Skandinaviens Echinodermer. p. 264. — Sars: Norges
Echinodermer. p. 93. — Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 491. — Lovén: Echinoidea descr. by Linnzeus
(252). p.61. — Hoyle: Rev. List of Brit. Echinoidea (202) p. 411. — Bell: Catalogue of Brit. Echino-
derms. p. 152.

With regard to the other synonyms and the other literature I shall refer to «Rev. of Ech.»
and Bell’s Catalogue. — I shall not here give any thorough description of this well known and
easily recognizable species, but only mention a few features which have hitherto been overlooked or
not clearly described.

The primary tubercles are very small, both in the ambulacral and the interambulacral areas,
so that they are only by a closer inspection seen also in this species to form regular longitudinal
series in the interambulacral areas, even in the largest specimens (Pl. XV. Fig.5). In small specimens,
on the other hand, the primary tubercles form very conspicuous longitudinal series, both in the ambu-
lacral and the interambulacral areas (PI. I. Fig.9), secondary tubercles being almost not yet found here.
The series of primary tubercles in the ambulacral areas is in large specimens very indistinct (Pl. XV.
Fig. 1); a primary tubercle is only found on every other ambulacral plate, below (and in young speci-
mens) the alternation of the tubercles, however, is most frequently very irregular, and above the
ambitus also 2—3 plates without primary tubercle may follow each other, sometimes also a couple
of plates with primary tubercle. The secondary tubercles on the plates wanting primary tubercle are
placed rather irregularly, the most common arrangement, however, being that a larger tubercle is
found near the median edge of the plate, and a small one outside of the primary series, quite at the
pores. On the uppermost ambulacral plates are found no secondary tubercles at all. — According to
Bell (Catalogue. p. 153) «the irregularity may be further increased by absorption of some of the
tubercles». That an absorption of tubercles (and spines) once formed, may take place, I must doubt;
it is, at all events, not the reason why primary tubercles are here wanting on every other (or still
more) ambulacral plates, the fact being that they have never been formed on these plates. — The
miliary tubercles are very little conspicuous, being of the same deep red colour as the test, while
the other tubercles just are so conspicuous on account of their white colour.

The close-set spines are short and thick, rarely longer than 14—15™™; in small specimens the
spines are comparatively longer than in the large ones, scarcely, however, in any instance more than
half the length of the diameter of the test. The spines on the actinal side are generally somewhat
flat, but not widened at the point; the end is most frequently somewhat blunt, worn, I suppose, by
the walk. Under higher magnifying powers the surface of the spines is seen to have a peculiar
appearance, being finely, irregularly striped longitudinally on the ribs (Pl. XX. Fig. 30); this holds

otherwise also good with regard to the other Achinus-species, as well as Strongylocentrotus and

ECHINOIDEA. I. 161

Parechinus, although it is not equally marked in all of them. On the buccal plates and on a few of
the other plates in the buccal membrane some small, club-shaped spines of a length of a couple of mm.
are found (Pl. XX. Fig. 24). As these spines are found in no other genuine Lchznws-species"), they are
an excellent distinguishing character of this species; they are, however, not found in quite small indi-
viduals, until these have reached a diameter of ca, 15™™.

The buccal membrane contains numerous, more or less complicate fenestrated plates (Pl. XVI.
Fig. 12); in larger specimens some of these are so large and thick, that they are seen as small knobs
on the dried buccal membrane. Inside of the buccal plates they are more numerous and smaller, and
are arranged in radiate series. A few bihamate spicules are rarely seen in the buccal membrane.
In the gills they are found in larger numbers together with the common irregular fenestrated plates.

The pedicellarie. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 24) with 1—1, sometimes 1—2
lateral teeth, otherwise without marked peculiarities. The tridentate pedicellarice (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 13, 20)
have a long, narrow, rather deep blade; from the upper end of the apophysis some mesh-work reaches
a longer or shorter way into the blade; in small pedicellariz no such mesh-work is found (Fig. 13).
Only at the point, where the valves join, the edge is somewhat serrate; in the other part it is straight,
but set with small teeth placed in transverse series as in the other Echznes-species. The ophicephalous
and triphyllous pedicellarie of the common form; sometimes, however, may be found a few large,
elongate ophicephalous pedicellarize, quite as those described above in Ech. Alexandri. The spheeridize
(Pl. XIX. Figs. 28, 30) with few grooves, sometimes a little thorny. Spicules (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 12) of the
common’ form.

By the «Ingolf»-Expedition this species has been taken on the following stations:

St. 6 (63° 43’ N. L. 14° 34'W. L. gofms. Bottom temp. 7° 5). 2 specimens.
— 54 (63°08' — 15°40 — 691 — — 4°23) 2 _
— 86 (65°04’ — 23°48 — 76 — - a ene —
— 89 (64°45) — 27°20' — 310 — —~ 8° o). I —

Otherwise it is found along the European coasts from Britany to Spitzbergen and Iceland.
Hoyle (op.cit.) mentions it also from the coasts of Spain and Portugal and from the Mediterranean,
and Bell (Catalogue) further notes it from Port Natal and Brazil. The two last statements I must suppose
to be incorrect, whether they are owing to wrong determinations or wrong labelling. A so wide
distribution of a littoral species would be something quite exceptional, and if this large, conspicuous
species were really found on the coasts of South Africa and Brazil, we should certainly have sufficient
statements of this fact. I must also regard its occurrence in the Mediterranean as doubtful, probably
owing to a confounding with other species (acz‘ws?). When Hoyle cites Carus as an authority for
its being found in the Mediterranean, it must be owing to a misapprehension. Carus, in his «Pro-
dromus Faunz mediterraneze», does not mention this species, but only Ech. esculentus Lamk. (not L.)
as a synonym of Spherech. granularis. Sluiter (371) also mentions a specimen of ch. esculentus 1.
from the Mediterranean, but I cannot regard this museum-statement as quite reliable either.

1) In the description of Ech. /ucidus by Déderlein (114) it is said: «Das Buccalfeld ist glatt bis auf 10 miassig grosse

Plittchen, deren jedes einen grésseren Tuberkel und einige Pedicellarien trégt». This might indicate that also in this species
spines may be found on the buccal plates. On the specimen I have examined, I have not, however, seen any such spines.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 21

162 ECHINOIDEA. I.

The greatest depth hitherto given for Ach. esculentus is 110 fathoms. Now it has been taken
by the «Ingolf» on 310 and 691 fathoms. Certainly, however, it is not common on so great depths;
it properly belongs to the littoral zone.

This species is not very varying. A peculiar form with especially fine spines and high test is
by Norman’) denoted as var. /enwispina; it seems only to occur on greater depths. Hoyle further
establishes a couple of varieties: ¢. «with red test and spines», and #. «with brownish-red spines»
(op. cit. p. 412), there is, however, I suppose, only slight reason to distinguish that kind of colour-
varieties. A couple of specimens of a middle size from the North Sea (40 fathoms) found in the col-
lection of our museum, have a very peculiar appearance, being very similar to Ech. elegans. The
spines are uncommonly long and quite red, and the test not so high as usual. But the spines on the
buccal plates and the fact that only every other ambulacral plate has a primary tubercle, leave no
doubt of their being escz/entus. These specimens perhaps correspond to Hoyle’s var. a. A couple of
larger, naked tests from Norway, also found in the museum of Copenhagen, combine to a curious
degree the characters of both £. esculentus and acutus, var. Flemingit, so that it is quite impossible
to decide with certainty to which of these species they belong, and the supposition of their being
hybrids between the two species seems very obvious.

It seems that the species Ech. Schwartzit described by Nilsson & Holst, can be no other
thing than a young &. esculentus; there is nothing in the description that will not agree with this
species, and other Echinids with red test are not found at the Norwegian coast on the rocks at the

very edge of the water; otherwise the type specimen is no longer found in the museum of Lund.

Fam. Toxopneustide.

Subfam. Strongylocentrotine.

17. Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis (O. F. Miill.).
Pl. I. Figs. 5—6. Pll. Figs. 3—5. Pl. XVI. Figs. 4, 9, 11, 13, 17, 21, 23. Pl. KX. Figs. 3—6, 12—13, 16, 18, 20, 25—26, 29.
Principal synonyms: “chines neglectus Lamk.
— granularis Say.
— granulatus Gould.
Toxopneustes pictus Norman.
— pallidus G. O. Sars.

Principal literature: Diiben & Koren: Ofvers. Skand. Ech. p. 277. — Liitken: Oversigt over
Gronlands Echinodermata. 1857. p.24. — G. O. Sars: Nye Ech. fra den norske Kyst. Forh. Vidensk.
Selsk. Christiania 1871. p.25. — Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p.277. — Duncan & Sladen: Mem.

Ech. Artic Sea (135). p.19. — Hoyle: Revised List of Brit. Echinoidea (202). p. 408. — Bell: Catalogue

of Brit. Echinoderms. p. 156.

1) On the Crustacea, Tunicata, Polyzoa, Echinodermata, Actinozoa, Hydrozoa and Porifera. Shetland Final Dredging
Report. II. Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1868. p. 314.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 163

With regard to the other synonyms and the immense number of places in the literature where
this species is mentioned or more thoroughly treated, the reader is referred to «Rev. of Ech.» and
Bell’s Catalogue. — As it has been treated so many times, I shall only here mention a few features
that have not before been described with sufficient clearness.

With regard to the provision of the test with tubercles very great variation is found. On
Pl. XVI. Figs. 17 and 23 is represented an ambulacral and an interambulacral area of a specimen
with comparatively few tubercles (Sars’s Str. pallidus), Figs. 11 and 21 represent the same of a
specimen with numerous tubercles (gvanzlaris Say). The difference is here very conspicuous, and
nevertheless the represented forms are by no means extreme ones. All transitional forms between
these may be found. The number of the pores varies between 4—7, but most commonly 5 or 6 are
found. Generally two ocular plates reach to the periproct (PI.XVI. Fig. 9), sometimes three, more
rarely one. On Pl. XVI. Fig. 4 is figured the apical area of a specimen with two pores in one of the
genital plates.

The buccal membrane contains rather numerous fenestrated plates some of which are large,
very complicated, and carry pedicellariz; those inside of the buccal plates are, as usual, smaller
(Pl. XVI. Fig. 13). Very few bihamate spicules in the buccal membrane and the gills, which latter
otherwise contain the usual irregular fenestrated plates.

The pedicellariz. It was the pedicellarize of this species which were figured by O. F. Miller
in Zoologia danica; among the later authors only Perrier‘) has studied them more thoroughly and
figured some of the skeletal parts. Also Agassiz gives some figures (Rev. of Ech. Pl. X), but they
are too small to show the interesting features found here. — The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XX.
Figs. 16, 25, 26, and 29) are highly characteristic and widely different from those of all the other Echi-
nids occurring in the northern Atlantic. The head is not, as in those, placed directly on the stalk,
but connected with it by a long, muscular neck, provided with as well longitudinal as circular muscles,
so that it may be stretched out and retracted, and the head may be moved freely in all directions.
The blade is tubular, without lateral teeth, only with a more or less marked obliquity above. Per-
rier’s figure (Pl. V. Fig. 7.a) of such a valve is rather unfortunate, as it seems to show two end-teeth.
The form of the basal part is rather varying, as the outer corners may be more or less conspicuous
or bent somewhat inward. Most frequently some spicules are found in the head, arranged in a narrow
band along the edge of the valves (Fig. 29). The stalk is a hollow tube peculiarly furrowed above.
(Also the stalks of the other pedicellariz are hollow.) The globiferous pedicellarie are generally
large and strong; they are sometimes found in so great numbers as to be almost more conspicuous
than the spines (on the abactinal side). Sometimes they are quite light, sometimes quite dark from
pigment; the more pigmented they are, the fewer spicules they seem to contain; they may also quite
want spicules.

The tridentate pedicellarie are of very different forms (Pl. XX. Figs. 4, 6, 20); the blade may be
long and narrow, or short and broad, deep with almost adjoining edges, or flat and broad; now there
is a strong mesh-work, now almost none. The ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XX.
Figs. 3, 5) without marked peculiarities. — The spicules (Pl. XX. Fig. 12) are branched at the ends, but

1) Recherches sur les Pedicellaires. p. 152.

164 ECHINOIDEA. I.

also really bihamate spicules are found, although only in smail numbers. The spheeridize (Pl. XX.
Figs. 13, 18) quite smooth or a little thorny, sometimes also a little grooved.

By the «Ingolf»-Expedition it has been taken on the following stations:

St. 2 (63° 04’ N.L. g° 22’ W. L. 262 ims. Clay, gravel. Bottom temp. 5° 9). 2 spec
— 4 (64°07' — 11°12! 237 Stones. — i) aie ema
— 6 (63° 43’ — 14°34’ — 90 — Sand. — 7-185) 62h
pre oy (SOA LEN waren st PIT ACOA ae GO) Pod) Os a 50405) te Sires
— 16 (65° 28’ — 27°05) — 250 — ? “= OFA). is
— 29 (65° 347 — 54°31’ — 68 — Sand. -— Ofe5)) Si
— 31 (66°43) — 55°57, — 88 — ? — 220) OM
— 32 (66°35' — 56°38’ — 318 — Mud. — An '2). Ty so
— 33 (67°57, — 55°30 — 35 — Coarse sand. — i 4. IO —
a OA 05 17 = SSA 7 5, aud. = OF 9) 50s
— 52 (63°57) — 13°32’ — 420 — ? —_ 74 2) ee
— 86 (65°04 — 23°48' — 76 — ? -— i)
— 87 (65°02 — 23°58’ — 110 — ? — > ). 46 —
— 98 (65°37, — 26°27) — 138 — ? — 6° 2). 30 —
—115 (70°50' — 8°29 — 86 — Mud. — ORT) ata
— 127 (66° 33’ — 20°05 — 44 — Sand. — 5° 9). 34 —

It is very widely distributed being found in all the arctic seas, and passing far to the south,
both in the Atlantic (to the English Channel and Massachusetts Bay) and in the Pacific (to Vancouver
Island and Korea). It is a littoral form, but goes rather deep; by the «Ingolf» it has been taken on
a depth of 420 fathoms, and Verrill even mentions it from 640 fathoms (426. p. 540.)

It is no wonder that a so widely distributed species is very varying; a whole series of «species»
has also been established on more or less marked forms of it. I completely agree with Agassiz,
Bell, a.o. that it is quite impossible to keep the forms described under the name of fallidus, granu-
laris, pictus, and carnosus*) distinct from the typical drobachiensis or from each other. Forms are
not rarely found, to be sure, which may easily be referred to these forms, but most frequently such a
referring will be impossible. I have examined several hundreds of specimens and found all possible
transitional forms. Marked local forms seem not to be found; but as a general thing it may be said
that in the Danish seas a more long-spined form is the most common one, at the Faroe Islands a
form with numerous short, strong spines and almost without spicules in the globiferous pedicellarize
seems to be predominant (most nearly the form gvamnedlaris); the Icelandic and East-Greenland speci-
mens seem upon the whole to have very numerous spicules in the globiferous pedicellariz, and the
Pacific specimens may often be referred to the form carnosus; quite typical drobachiensts are, however,
found so far down as Korea (after specimens in the museum of Copenhagen). These forms may
so far be kept up as distinct varieties, but I do not see that we gain anything by it. Most specimens
it will certainly be impossible to refer to any decided one of these varieties, and the separate varieties
may often be found together. Neither can any difference be pointed out between the forms from
shallow water and those from deep water.

Also the colour is very varying; most common is a grayish white or a somewhat greenish colour,

1) With regard to S¥r. chlorocentrotus see above p. 120,

ECHINOIDEA. I. 165

but frequent are the reddish or dark, almost black specimens; a fine violet specimen may now and
then be found (PII. Figs.5—6. Pl. Il. Figs. 3—5).

Rodger (333. p. 163) speaks of an «extraordinary variety of Str. drobachiensis, with enormous
pedicellariz». It must decidedly be asserted that a variety cannot be established characterized by
especially large pedicellariz; the size of the globiferous pedicellarie (and they are certainly meant) is
so very varying, that it would be a quite absurd thing to distinguish different forms by this feature;
the difference in size is, moreover, increased by the neck of the pedicellarize being now stretched out,
now retracted. We might with more probability expect to find a difference of importance in the
tridentate pedicellariee, but the different varieties cannot be distinguished by means of those either.
A «Var. with slender, reddish spines», mentioned by Verrill (416. p. 504), is scarcely better characterized

than the other varieties.

There are in the literature a few statements of other regular Echinids from the North-European
seas. Agassiz (10) enumerates Echinus melo among Echinids from the Faroe-Channel, but adds:
«there is nothing new». Here must, I think, be some mistake, and I must quite agree with Bell
(Catal. p.155) that ch. melo cannot on this basis be included in the fauna of the North-European
seas — quite apart from the question, whether #ck. melo can upon the whole be kept up as a
distinct species.

Dalla Torre (108. p. 92) mentions «Strongylocentrotus» lividus from Helgoland; this is, no
doubt, a confounding with Str. drobachiensis, which latter is not named. Further Herdmann
(194. p. 89) mentions «Str.» lividus from Norway without further informations; this is surely also
a mistake. The Norwegian coast-fauna has been so excellently examined by so many eminent
Norwegian naturalists, that it is quite inconceivable that this large, fine Echinid should have been
overlooked. Finally Sluiter (371. p. 70) states to have a specimen of Spherechinus granularis from
Denmark. Unfortunately we must relinquish our claim to the joy of having this beautiful and inter-
esting Echinid in our seas; the northermost locality, from which it is known, is the Channel Isles.

(Bell. Catalogue. p. 106).

fTable of the Echinids of the Families Echinide and Toxopneustide') occurring in the northern Atlantic
and the Mediterranean.

1. The spicules simply bihamate, the globiferous pedicellaric
with 1—more lateral teeth on either side................ 2.

The spicules branched at the ends or dumb-bell-shaped,

the globiferous pedicellarize without lateral teeth......... 13.
PRUNE POLES atrIMCMIMAtTe. eee slacieyacie eve seis iaeelsisise st 2
_— TNMs MOE aa ok dood Oeood a Ea UOC aD ooE Paracentrotus lividus (Lamk.).

3. The globiferous pedicellarie with the edges of the blade
fine, projecting into several large indentations on either
side; no cross-beams connect the edges across the inside.. 4.

1) In this table the species Echinus gracilis, atlanticus, and ducidus have been included, so that it comprises all
sure Echinuws-species.

166

ECHINOIDEA. I.

IO.

nf

The globiferous pedicellarize with the edges of the blade
thickened, connected by cross-beams across the inside (in
Ech. Alexandri, however, sometimes without such cross-
1OLer- 060) Es Cate Per OAIAD cis Par A Sieh NA Altar cid Ape SELAISIn oni Stas 5
The plates on the buccal membrane thick, greenish, of a
peculiar structure (a compact calcareous mass with deep,
funnel-shaped holes); they form a dense covering.........

The plates on the buccal membrane not greenish, of
the common structure; they form no quite dense covering,
nakediskin=dsiseenubetween) themmnan seh see coe ae
Primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates............

— = only on every other ambulacral plate...
The tridentate pedicellarize with the blade broad and rather
flat; the globiferous pedicellarize generally with 3—4 teeth
Onueitherssideiol thembladea-. = eee oreo i

The tridentate pedicellariz with the blade narrow and
deep; the globiferous pedicellarize with 1-—2 teeth on either
sidegoi' thes blades fjasrign taric a eee eer ees
The primary tubercles on the ambulacral areas of very
unequal size, or, if the size decreases regularly towards the
apical area and the peristome, the two series in each
ambulacral area of very different size. iy Eee et

The primary tubercles on the ambulacral areas decrease
regularly in size towards the apical area and the peristome;
bothsenlessoneqlialesize ase mero eee er er eres
Abhe: test thr oe hens eres oes oan aenic hut ey lore ee

— ratheratlate ear. .ethic ce eet meee aeae eee He
Finely red; the ophicephalous pedicellarize with uncom-
monly lon gwiblad Gr yc0.6 series ence acloch hie ei aera

With a fine green coloration; the ophicephalous pedi-
cellanicesof theycommontorme eo ee eto rear
The globiferous pedicellariz generally with 2—2 lateral
teeth; the test and the spines generally finely red and
WiiteINoOremrarclysthemtest wiOlet- a sae ee cee rE rener

The globiferous pedicellariz generally with 1—1 lateral
tooth, fe West andthe spines swiltte) cent) rt er eee
Spines on the buccal plates; the primary spines short,
thick, not distinctly longer than the secondary ones......

No spines on the buccal plates; the primary spines

considerably longer than the secondary ones.............

Parechinus microtuberculatus (Blv.).

Parechinus miliaris (Miull.).
6.

Il.

Echinus Alexandri Dan. Kor.

Echinus affinis Mrtsn.

Echinus atlanticus Mrtsn.

Echinus gracilis Ag.

Echinus elegans Dib. Kor.

Echinus luctdus Déderl.

Echinus esculentus Vy.

12.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 167

12. Only every other interambulacral plate above the ambitus
with a primary tubercle; the primary spines rather short,
greenish; the form of the test almost globular........... Echinus melo Vamk.
Only a few interambulacral plates nearest to the apical
area want primary tubercle; the primary spines most fre-
quently rather long, reddish; the test high or more or less flat Achimus acutus!) Lamk.
13. The spicules branched in the ends, none dumb-bell-shaped ;
the globiferous pedicellarize with long, muscular neck; no
glands on the stalk. The pores multigeminate........... Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis (Miill.)
The spicules of the pedicellarize dumb-bell-shaped, those
of the tube feet branched in the ends; the globiferous
pedicellarize without neck, with glands on the stalk. The

JOOS, ompllinreR STEN 4 aah o @oo sao 6 ObiD-our ¢ oN aoa e bE eee Okc Spherechinus granuiaris?) (1amk.).

Several results of importance to the study of the geographical distribution will appear from
the present researches. A complete representation of these results must, however, be delayed, till the
irregular Echinids have been treated. Here I shall only briefly mention one feature of greater interest,
viz. the resemblance between the arctic-subarctic and the antarctic-subantarctic Echinid-fauna, as this
resemblance is chiefly based on the regular Echinids.

Meissner (285) gives a comparison of the Echinid-fauna of the two regions after the state-
ments in the literature: one species occurs in both these regions, is «bipolar», viz. Achznes norvegicus.
The following species represent each other: Czdaris canaliculata and papillata, Echinus magellanicus
and miliaris, E. margaritaceus and elegans, Strongylocentrotus albus and drobachiensis, Schizaster Phi-
lippu and fragilis. I shall express no opinion with regard to the two Schzzaster-species, but all the
other points of resemblance between the two faunas are quite illusory. I have shown above that
Echinus norvegicus is not bipolar. The statement originates from Agassiz («Challenger» Echinoidea
p- 117), but is wrong. The specimens (from st. 308) that have been referred to Ach. norvegicus, are
partly Sterechinus magellanicus, partly an Achinus-species that has nothing to do with norvegicus; it
belongs to the species with primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates; it is perhaps a new species.
— «Cidaris» canaliculata and papillata can in no way be said to correspond to each other, they belong
to two different genera, Stereocidaris and Dorocidaris; any two other Cidarids might as justly be said
to represent each other. «Achinus» magellanicus and miliaris, to be sure, are rather similar with

regard to habitus, but as they belong, not only to two different genera, but to two different sub-

1) With regard to var. medt/erranea, Flemingti, and norvegicus 1 must refer to the description above (pp. 154—155).
2) I cannot give the characters of Spha@rechinus roseus more particularly, as I have not seen this species; the reader
is referred to Russo’s description of it (347).

168 ECHINOIDEA. I.

families, they cannot be said to correspond very exactly to each other. Hchinus margaritaceus and
elegans must be referred to two different genera, Sterechinus and Echinus, so that these species can
not be placed as substitutes for each other either. Upon the whole it is worthy of notice that it
proves necessary to refer all the antarctic «Achznus»-species to another genus (S¢erechinus) than the
northern species. It seems to be rather gratuitous to place the separate species of these two genera
against each other as substitutes. With regard finally to Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis and albus,
they, to be sure, have some resemblance as to habitus — nevertheless they belong to two different
families. — With this I suppose it to be sufficiently proved that there is no special resemblance

between the arctic-subarctic and the antarctic-subantarctic Echinid-fauna.

oe LX

y an assistance received from the Carlsberg Fond, for which I here render my best thanks, I was
iB enabled to go abroad for a longer time during the summer of rg02 to visit several of the most
important museums, especially British Museum and the Museum of Paris. By this I have been enab-
led to decide many of the questions which in the preceding work I had been obliged to leave unde-
cided. As the printing of the work had already gone so far, that nothing could be corrected or added,
these informations are here given in an appendix. Neither was it possible to insert any reference to
the appendix in the places concerned of the text.

I beg leave to offer my best thanks to Messrs. Prof. Pfeffer, Sluiter, Bell, Perrier, de
Loriol, Déderlein, and Mébius, as well as to Dr. Meissner for the liberality they have shown
especially by giving me free admission to examine the type specimens, which are of so very great

importance.

The treatment of the pedicellariz (pp. 10, 55). For the isolation of the skeletal parts it is more
convenient to use hypochlorite of sodium (Na OCL) (Eau de Javelle); it acts very quickly, and has not
to be heated as the solution of potash. Especially by the treating of very small forms of pedicellariz
hypochlorite of sodium is absolutely to be preferred, as the skeletal parts are by this means easily isolated
on the objectglass. Prof. Déderlein has drawn my attention to this very practical manner of proceeding.

« Globifere» Hamann (pp. 10, 55). As I had had no occasion to examine these organs myself, |
supposed them really to be globiferous pedicellariz, whose peculiar appearance was due to the highly
developed glands on the stalk and the reduction of the head. In his preliminary report of the Echinids
of the Siboga-Fxpedition'), de Mejere has given the information that they are really ophicephalous
pedicellariz. Having now had the occasion to examine these peculiar pedicellariz myself I must
corroborate the correctness of the statement of de Mejere; in Centrostephanus longispinus, to be sure,
they are somewhat different from the ophicephalous pedicellariz where glands are wanting on the
stalk, but in Asfzdodiadema they are constructed in quite the same manner as these. Accordingly it
is absolutely inadmissible to use the name of «Globiferze» of these pedicellarie, they are morphologi-
cally highly different from the globiferous pedicellarie. If a special name is needed for them, they

must be called «claviform» pedicellariaz, which name has been proposed by Foettinger (155) what

1) Vorliufige Beschreibung der neuen, durch die Siboga-Expedition gesammelten Echiniden. Tijdschr. d. Nederl.
Dierk, Vereen. (2) VIII. 1902. p. 16.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. t.

to
no

170 ECHINOIDEA. I.

Hamann has overlooked, though be repeatedly quotes the paper by Foettinger. The name of
«Globiferze» must then be rejected for these pedicellariz in the Yzadematide on account of priority as
well as morphology. In Spherechinus the case is quite different; here they are evidently (rudimentary)
globiferous pedicellarize; the name of «claviform» pedicellariz cannot be applied to them.

Dorocidaris papillata. The arrangement of the tubercles in the ambulacral areas described p. 32
(Pl. IV. Fig. 8) is no constant feature. In some specimens from the Shetland Islands brought home by
Cand. mag. A.S. Jensen, the secondary tubercles are sometimes placed opposite to those in the primary
series, sometimes alternating with these (as in Crdaris affinis), sometimes there is a tubercle both oppo-

site to the primary one and one down in the inner corner of the ambulacral plate.

Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9.

Fig. 7. Valve of a large globiferous pedicellaria of SYeveoctdaris Loriolt. Obj. AA. Oc. III. (Zeiss).
— & — - small —- — - Stereocidaris Lortolt. Obj. AA. Oc. III. (Zeiss).
— 9 — - large — — - Dorocidaris nuda. Obj. AA, Oc. IIL. (Zeiss).

With regard to the hitherto uncontrolled statements of the occurrence of DP. papzllata (p. 35) I
am now able to give the following informations: the specimen from St. Pauls Rock (Challenger) is a
YD. papillata. This locality is the southernmost one, from which the species is known, — the specimens
(2) from the still more southern locality, «Challenger» st. 320 (off the mouth of the River Plate) being
no D. papillata, but a species hitherto not described. The spines resemble those of D. Aapillata, have
a slightly reddish, rather long neck; there are about 18 longitudinal ribs, serrate as in C. affinis;
between the ribs slightly branched «hairs» are found, so that a transverse section of the spines gives
a quite similar figure as in LD. fapillata. In the smaller specimen the spines are a little more thorny.
No ampulla on the secondary spines. The large globiferous pedicellariz (Fig. 7) without end tooth,
the blade a little prolonged. The mouth is long and narrow, surrounded by rather strong teeth. They

are rather varying in size, the figured one is among the smaller. In the larger ones the lateral

ECHINOIDEA. I. 171
corners are less conspicuous or even not indicated at all. The mouth may also be somewhat shorter,
so that the whole valve reminds of the form peculiar of the genus C7zdaris. The small globiferous
pedicellarice (Fig. 8) are of a quite different form, flat and broad, the lower limit little conspicuous; they
are also very varying in size, and the larger specimens are very similar to tridentate pedicellariz. Real
tridentate pedicellarize I have not found. The spicules of the common form. This species, no doubt,
is to be referred to the genus Stereocidaris; I propose the name of St. Lorioli n. sp.

The specimens from Chall. st. 24 (Culebra Island) and from Gomera (The Canary Islands) I
have not seen — they are not found in British Museum — and so I can give no informations of them.

Of the specimen of D. fapillata mentioned by Studer (386), from 4°40’ N. L. 9° 10' E. Ll, 59
fathoms (the «Gazelle»-Expedition) (the mentioned locality is not, as Studer says, the Cape Verd
Islands, but quite innermost in the Gulf of Guinea) I have (pp. 35, 37) expressed the supposition that
it might be Crdaris affinis. This is not correct; it is a new Dorocidaris-species, very different from D. papil-
lata as to habitus. The secondary spines are rather few, and, with the exception of the primary series
in the ambulacral areas and a single circle round each radiole, very small, by which fact the whole
test, but specially the apical area, gets a strikingly naked appearance. In the ambulacral areas a
double series of spines is found in the median line, so small, that they do not reach to the base of those
in the primary series. No <ampullz» seem to be found. The secondary spines are reddish brown;
according to Studer they are purple (on living individuals?); the colour of the test white. The radioles
are likewise reddish brown, but of a lighter shade than the secondary spines; they are about 11/,—2
times as long as the diameter of the test, only a little tapering towards the point, ending in a little
widening. There are ca. g—11 more or less coarsely serrate, rather conspicuous longitudinal ridges;
the <hairs» on the outer layer between the longitudinal ridges as in D. fapillata, so that a transverse
section of the spines gives the same picture as in the latter species. The actinal radioles not much
serrate in the edge, upon the whole only little different from the others, excepting with regard to the
length. The areoles comparatively very large, but not especially deep; they occupy almost the whole
space, so that there is only room left for a few secondary spines outside of the single circle nearest
to the radiole. No naked median line in the interambulacral areas or between the plates; no trans-
verse furrows in the edge of the interambulacral areas as in fafzl/ata. The inner tubercles in the
ambulacral areas are placed opposite to or a little below those in the primary series. — The mouth
of the large globiferous pedicellariz (Fig. 9) is regularly limited below, often by a straight line; it is
surrounded by rather strong teeth. The dorsal side of the blade is less highly perforated than in
D. papillata,; the small globiferous pedicellarize as in this species. The tridentate pedicellariz are not
so irregularly serrate in the edge and upon the whole less complicate in the lower part of the blade
than in D. fapillata. ‘The spicules as in fafil/ata and arranged as in this species. — This species, for
which I propose the name of Dorocidaris nuda n.sp., I have also found in the museum of Paris, from
«Talisman», st. 109, 70 m., and st. 110, 450 m., near Cape Verd, called Dorocid. hystrix, by which name
it has been mentioned by Bernard (78).

It is still to be noted that the specimen of D. pafil/ata mentioned in Rev. of Ech. p. 105, from
Guadeloupe (Duchassaing), does not belong to this species; it is a Czdarzs sp., probably C. a/fnzs.

Thus I have established the fact that no less than 8 different species, of which, moreover, only

22;

172 ECHINOIDEA. I

one belongs to the genus Vorocidaris, have in the literature been wrongly referred to DV. papillata, viz.
Dorocidaris nuda, Tretocidarts annulata, spinosa, Cidarts affints, baculosa and another Cidaris-species
(Chall. st. 204), Stereocidarts Lorioli, and another Stereocidarts-species (Chall. st. 210) — a fine demon-
stration of the trustworthiness of the statements hitherto found in the literature with regard to the
occurrence and distribution of these animals.

Cidaris Thouarsiz. The type specimen has a short limb on the stalk of the pedicellariz; I
suppose then, that the specimens, in which I have found a long limb (p.17), do not belong to this
species. The main point, however, is that C. Zhowarsit as well as its close relation C. Galapagensis,
belong to the genus Czdaris. I shall not here trench on the question whether gal/apagenszs can really
be kept up as a separate species.

Cidaris annulifera (pp. 1g—20, 28). Having examined the type specimen of Lamarck in the
museum of Paris I am able definitively to decide the question of this species. It is the species figured
by de Loriol (243) under this name, and it is doubtless synonymous with C. baculosa, while it has
nothing to do with C. dzspimosa and the genus Stephanocidaris. The representation of these species
given by Déderlein in «Bericht tiber die von Herrn Prof. Semon bei Amboina und Thursday Island
gesammelten Echinoidea» (Semon. Zool. Forschungsreisen in Australien und dem Malayischen Archipel.
V. 1902. — Jen. Denkschr. VIII") is completely correct. The type specimen of C. annulifera is a naked
test filled with wax, on which the radioles are fixed with needles. Secondary spines, pedicellarize, and
tube feet are completely wanting, but the red spots on the neck of the radioles leave no doubt that
it is a form of C. baculosa. As baculosa is named first by Lamarck, the name of aznudlifera must be
rejected as a specific name, can only be kept as the name of a variety of éacwlosa, as has been done
by Déderlein. — On the other hand I cannot agree with Déderlein, when he adopts the name
of pistillaris Lamk. instead of dacalosa, because Lamarck names festidlaris as the first name. It
would, no doubt, be correct if we could prove with certainty that C. frstdlarzs and baculosa are one
species, but this we cannot do, as the type specimen seems to be existing no more. It is not found in
the museum in «Jardin des plantes», and it cannot be decided, whether a specimen found under this
name in «Ecole des mines» in Paris, is a type specimen. It is to be noted, however, that this specimen
has the red spots on the neck of the spines. Lamarck does not name «Ecole des mines» under this
species, neither is it in «Catalogue raisonné» mentioned trom this collection. wo specimens from the
Seychelles (Rousseau 1841) found in the museum in «Jardin des plantes» under the name of fzs¢z//arzs
do exactly want the red spots on the neck of the spines, but have close, bluish red streaks. Probably
they are genuine Czdaris, perhaps only a variety of éacelosa, but as I could find no large globiferous
pedicellariz on the specimens, I cannot decide it with certainty. Dédderlein (op. cit. p. 693) says that

selten fliessen die Tiipfel in Langsstreifen zusammen»; I cannot see, however, that he has proved the

specimens with these longitudinal streaks to be the same species as the typical dacwlosa — if indivi-
duals with both forms of spines might be found, it might be taken to be certain. — For the present

I must regard this form with the longitudinal streaks (presumably the C. pesti/laris of Lamarck) as

a separate species or, at all events, a distinct variety of C. daculosa which is so very rich in forms.

1) This very important and excellent work did not appear till the printing of the present work was begun, so I have
not been able to take it into consideration. It does not, however, overthrow any of my results.

ECHINOIDEA. I. I

“I
&

To adopt the name of fzstrllares in stead of daculosa I must, for the reasons given above, regard as
unwarranted.

Schleinitzia crenularis (p. 20). — The specimen figured by Studer cannot be identified any
longer with certainty in the museum of Berlin; a dried specimen without label resembles the figure
rather much, but not quite — it is C. daculosa var. annulifera. Two other specimens in alcohol are
Stephanocid. bispinosa, a form with little thorny spines as in var. ramsayt Déderl. (op. cit. p. 697). In
the glass together with one of these specimens is found a loose spine of C. dacezlosa var. annulifera.
No more specimens are found in the museum of Berlin. Thus Schlewztzia crenularis is = Cidaris bacu-
losa var. annulifera and Stephanoc. bispinosa.

Acanthocidaris curvatispinis (p. 21). Of this species I found a specimen, also from Mauritius,
in the museum of Paris, called Dovrocidaris? The globiferous pedicellarize are quite as in the type
specimen; sometimes the two outmost teeth at the mouth may be united at the point and thus form
an apparent end tooth. Tridentate pedicellariz were not found on this specimen.

FHiistocidarzs elegans (pp. 21—22). By a renewed examination of all the specimens in British
Museum I have not been able to find any globiferous pedicellarie; accordingly the valve figured on
Pl. IX. Fig. 2, with two end-teeth is evidently an abnormity having nothing to do with this species.
The genus //istocidaris then seems only to have tridentate pedicellarie.

Stereocidaris nutrix (Gontoc. membranipora Studer) (p. 26). I have examined all the specimens
of this species in the museum of Berlin; none of them have young ones on the periproct, but two
have young ones round the mouth, quite as described by Wyv. Thomson. The remark by Studer
quoted on p. 26 is thus incorrect, it must apply to his G.wzfara. No specimen of this species in the
museum of Berlin carries any longer young ones, but some young are lying in a couple of small
glasses together with them. Accordingly my interpretation of Stereoc. nutrix and canaliculata is no
doubt correct.

Porocidaris purpurata. A couple of large, fine specimens in the museum of Paris («Talisman
Riv. Ouro. 1439 m.) differ from the common form by the fact that in the uppermost (1—2) radioles of
each series the neck is swollen in a fusiform manner and of a fine violet colour; the other spines are
quite cylindric. Otherwise it agrees with pzrpurata, also the pedicellarize are quite as in this species.
I suppose it to be a separate species, but as I can give no other characters of it, I shall only desig-
nate it as a variety of P. purpurata under the name of var. Talismani n. var.

Dorocidaris tiara. Of this species I have examined a specimen from Calcutta in the collection
of de Loriol. With regard to spines and pedicellarice it agrees exactly with S/ephanoc. bracteata (Ag.),
and so it is evidently a synonym of this species.

Phormosoma placenta. After the printing of the section of the Echinothurids, a glass was found
with some small young ones of this species from st. 25; the smallest ones have only a diameter of
3™™, and are thus considerably smaller than the youngest stages of Echinothurids hitherto known’).
Thus it will be of great interest to get information of these younger stages. Agassiz has, in
«Blake»-Echini, given some informations of the development of Phormosoma, but as the youngest of

1) The specimen of «Asthenosoma» hystrix of 3,1™™, mentioned and figured in Rev. of Ech. p. 273 (Pl. Il.c.) is scar-
cely an Echinothurid; at all events there is neither in the description nor in the figures anything showing it.

174 ECHINOIDEA. L
his specimens had a diameter of 8™™, he has not, of course, been able to give all the necessary
informations. To this is to be added that I must decidedly contest the correctness of several of the
most important statements of Agassiz.

The form of the test is in specimens of a diameter of 3™™ as in a common chins, not flattened,
and the plates are not yet imbricated; already in specimens of a diameter of 5™ the test is a
little flattened. In the smallest specimens the peristome is quite covered by the ro large buccal plates;
only inside of these, nearest to the mouth, a few small, irregular plates are seen. All the ro buccal
tube feet are well developed and of equal size; spines are not yet found on the buccal plates. In a
specimen of a diameter of 5™™ there are 5 spines on the buccal plates, one for each pair of tube feet;
here ambulacral plates have begun to appear on the buccal membrane outside of the buccal plates.
A specimen of a diameter of 7™™ has 10 spies on the buccal plates alternating regularly with the
tube feet, so that spines and tube feet together form a regular circle; here also 5 spines have appeared
outside of the first circle, one opposite to each ambulacrum. According to Agassiz the buccal plates
in Phormosoma placenta should not differ in size from the other plates on the peristome, so that «the
Echinid features of the actinostome» did not seem to occur in this species. This is incorrect; in the
youngest stages the buccal plates are easily recognised by their size — but it is to be admitted that
this difference in size soon disappears, the other plates of the peristome reaching about the same size.
Of these plates in the peristome Agassiz (op. cit. p. 32) says that they «are developed... independently
of the coronal plates; new plates forming on the distal surface of the actinostome, which are interca-
lated between the old plates and the coronal plates». This is absolutely incorrect; the plates of the
peristome are ambulacral plates displaced adorally (Lovén); on a contrary supposition beginnings of
them and quite small plates must be found outermost in the peristome, but this is not the case — on
the contrary the outermost plates are the largest. In «Challenger»-Echinoidea p. 73 Agassiz also
says that these plates «are formed by becoming detached from the ambulacral zones».

In the smallest of the specimens in hand there are as yet only ca. 7 pairs of tube feet, besides
the buccal ones. There is no distinct difference between the primary and the accessory ambulacral
plates; only in a specimen of a diameter of 7™™ the primary one begins to grow larger than the
others, and it carries now 1—2 tubercles, while the small ones have at most a small miliary tubercle.
In specimens of this size the areoles begin to be deepened, so that the difference between the actinal
and abactinal side is now already indicated. — Auricule are already distinct in individuals of a diameter
of 6™™, but are as yet only a pair of small processes, not connected above. The gills do not appear
till later; im individuals of a diameter of 10™" they are not yet to be seen. A few triphyllous pedi-
cellarize, of the same form as in the adult, and a few spheeridize are already found in the smallest
specunens. — The apical area is in all essentials as in the youngest stage figured (Pl. IV. Fig. 2). The
periproct is, even in the smallest specimens, covered by a number of small, irregular plates, with no
larger plate between. So a central plate seems never to be found here. The genital plates join for
a long space, so that the ocular plates are widely separated from the periproct; these plates are much
lengthened, reach down quite to the middle of the test, and here the pore is placed, which, in accord-

ance with its morphological signification as the opening of the terminal feeler (the point of the

ECHINOIDEA. 1, 17

radiary canal), is found from the earliest stages, and not, as stated by Agassiz (op. cit. p. 35), only
formed, when the animal has reached a size of 20™".

Of the formation of the interambulacral plates the following very remarkable statement is found
in Agassiz (op.cit. p.32): «On the abactinal system ... while the plates of the genital ring are well
defined and seem to be distinctly separated from the coronal plates, yet new interambulacral plates
are not added independently as in the ambulacral system and in the interambulacral system of other
young Kchinids where the genital ring remains permanently closed. The new interambulacral plates
are found to be pushing out from the plates of the anal system on each side of the genital plates.
As the ocular and genital plates of the genital ring become separated with increasing size, the addi-
tional anal plates formed in the intervening spaces are pushed out, and become a part of the abactinal
portion of the interambulacral area». ... «This shows a far closer relationship between the young of
some of the Sea-urchins of the present day with Starfishes and Ophiurans on the one side and Holo-
thurians on the other, than had been suspected formerly». — This statement is completely incorrect.
The interambulacral plates are formed in Ph. placenta as in other Echinids, not by the anal plates.
The «genital ring», at all events, is closed, until the animal has reached a size of 17™™ in diameter,
and so far accordingly the interambulacral plates must necessarily be formed in the common way, as
may also easily be substantiated. In a specimen of a diameter of 30™" a couple of ocular and genital
plates are still joining, and here the case is quite the same. That a new mode of formation of the
interambulacral plates, otherwise quite unknown among the Echinids, should then suddenly occur, is
very improbable — and, above all, Agassiz has not at all proved it; all that may be seen in the
larger specimens, is that the small anal plates directly adjoin the uppermost interambulacral plates.
Thus the more close relation between Asterids, Ophiurids, Holothurids, and «some of the Sea-urchins
of the present day», which Agassiz derived from this feature, is quite illusory.

Calveria gracilis, — The parasitic Copepod from the spines of this species, mentioned on p. 51,
has been described by Dr. H. J. Hansen in Vidensk. Medd. fra Naturh. Foren. Kobenhavyn r1go2 by the
name of Echinocheres globosus.

Areosoma fenestratum. In a well preserved specimen from «Blake» 1880 (with no more precise
locality) found in the museum of Paris, I have found the tetradactylous pedicellarie together with as
well the large as the small form of tridentate pedicellarie. If still some doubt might be left of the
correctness of my interpretation of this species, no doubt will hereafter be possible.

Through Prof. Bell I have from «Department in the course of fishing investigations» received
some specimens of an Echinothurid from west of Ireland («Poreupine» Bank, 199 fathoms) which
prove to be closely allied to A. fenestratum, but are, no doubt, nevertheless to be interpreted as a
separate species. The structure of the test differs somewhat from that of A. /evestratum. In the latter
the interambulacral plates are lower in the middle, and widened in both ends, in the former most of
the plates are not widened at all in the outer end. (This character, however, is scarcely very reliable
— comp. Bell (72)). The primary tubercles of the ambulacral areas form on the actinal side a
rather regular longitudinal series out at the tube feet, in /ewestratum they are arranged more
irregularly. Otherwise no difference is found in the arrangement of the tubercles between this species

and fenestratum, oniy, perhaps, the secondary spines are somewhat more numerous in the new species.

176 ECHINOIDEA. IL.

— Tetradactylous pedicellarize I have not found. The tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz as in
Jenestratum; the large form of tridentate pedicellariz is found in very different sizes, but also the
small ones are of the typical structure, so that they cannot be confounded with the other form.
Besides the forms of the second kind of tridentate pedicellariz mentioned and figured for /enxestratum,
a form is also found here where the blade is not at all involved below (Fig. 10). I have, however,
once found this form in A. /enestratum (in a specimen from Barbados, in British Museum), and so it
can be no specific character. The spicules, perhaps, are a little smaller than in fenestratwm, but this
difference is too little marked to be used as a specific character. The best character is the colour,
which in the preserved specimens is deeply dark violet, while all the specimens of fenestratum I have
seen, are quite bleached in alcohol: also in the living animals the colour is quite different — comp.
the description by Wyv. Thomson. The primary spines on the actinal side are dark with a rather
large, white hoof, very conspicuous on the dark
ground-colour. — The organs of Stewart are very
large; the longitudinal muscles powerful. — For
this species, the place of which is evidently
between A. fenestratum and coriacewm, 1 propose
the name of Arzosoma violaceum n. sp.
Echinosoma uranus (p. 57). A couple of speci-
mens of this species («Talisman» Sahara, 938 m.)
I have seen in the museum of Paris. All the
primary spines on the actinal side were broken,
but some of the spines round the mouth had a
little hoof; after this there can be no doubt that

the primary spines on the actinal side end in a

hoof as in £. fenwe. The large tridentate pedicel-

Fig. 10. Valve of tridentate pedicellaria of Arwosoma violaceum. larize are quite similar to the one of £ tenue

Obj. AA. Oc. IL. (Zeiss). figured on Pl. XII. Fig. 35, with the exception that
Fig. 11. Valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria of Aygrosoma y ‘ :
Petersit. Obj. AA. Oc. I. (Zeiss). here the apophysis does not continue into the

blade as a crest.

Hygrosoma Peters (p. 59). In a specimen of this species (the Azores, 1258 m. «Talisman».
The museum of Paris) was found a pedicellaria (Fig. 11) forming a transition between the ophicephal-
ous pedicellariee in Zyromékosoma Kochleri and the short, thick pedicellariee of 77. luculentum. After
this there can be no doubt that /uculentwm is really to be classed together with 7/7 Petersi, and it
may well be supposed that this form of pedicellarize will also be found in //. hoplacantha — in other
words that it is one of the characters of the genus //ygrosoma. Whether it is then to be regarded as
an ophicephalous or a transformed tridentate pedicellaria is so far of no consequence; I think it,
however, most correct to regard it as an ophicephalous one, although in /ucalentum it is not of the
typical structure. — The form of pedicellariz in //. Zeculentwm (Chall. Pl. XLIV. Fig. 27) mentioned on
p. 60, I have not been able to find by a renewed examination of the specimen from st. 200, although

this specimen is rather well preserved. — If thus ophicephalous pedicellariee are found in the genus

ECHINOIDEA. I. 177
Hygrosoma, the difference between the latter and the genus 77omikosoma becomes rather more slight
than stated in the diagnoses. Then there is only any difference of importance in the form of the tri-
dentate pedicellarize; but this difference is so great, that I, at all events for the present (until transi-
tional forms become known), must regard the genus 7yomikosoma as a legitimate one.

Kamptosoma asterias (p.60). All the three specimens from Chall. st. 272 which Agassiz has
determined as Phormosoma tenue?, are K. asterias. After a renewed examination I must regard it as
unjustified to establish a separate species of this genus on them. — It is the primary spines on the
actinal side that are flat and widened at the point (Pl. XIV. Fig. 29); below they are round, tubular,
and then they become evenly flattened towards the point. They are a little curved; a hoof is scarcely
found. The spines nearest to the mouth are surrounded by a rather thick bag of skin, not widened
at the point. The small, «accessory» ambulacral plates are really wanting, only nearest to the peri-
stome a single one may be found. For each ambulacral plate here are as usual three branches from
the radial canals, but two of them are quite thin and their ampullz rudimentary, and their tube feet
are not developed at all.

Sperosoma Grimaldi (p.75). Of this species I have found ca. 20 specimens in the museum of
Paris («Talisman», the Azores, Morocco, 300—1257 m.), determined partly as Phormosoma uranus, partly
as Asthenosoma hystrix. Our museum has further received some specimens of different sizes from the
Faroe Channel (59° 29’ N. L. 7° 51’ W. L. 580—689 fathoms. «Michael Sars». Ad. S. Jensen), a corrobora-
tion of the supposition with regard to its geographical distribution expressed above. — Rather great
variation proves to be found in the mutual relation of the size of the abactinal ambulacral plates;
accordingly there cannot be laid much stress on the deviations in this respect from the type specimen
of Koehler described above, and there can be no doubt that the large specimen figured on PI. IV.
Fig. 3, is a real SA. Grimaldit.

Prionechinus sagittiger (p. 84). As far as can be seen on the type specimen preserved in
alcohol (st. 218), no grooves are found in the test; to be able to state this fact with certainty, it will,
however, be necessary to examine a dried specimen.

Echinus luctdus (pp. 100, 105) has calcareous plates in the buecal membrane as the other genuine
Echinus-species; they are simple fenestrated plates as in Ech. Alexandri. There are no spines on the
buccal plates (p. 161, note).

Sterechinus margaritaceus (pp. to1—102). De Loriol has called my attention to the fact that the
figures of Ech. margaritaceus given in «Voyage de la Frégate Venus». Zoophytes Pl. VI. 1, do not
agree with Koehler’s description of S¢. avéarcticus, especially as all the ocular plates in margaritaceus
are shut off from the periproct. Trusting to the interpretation by Agassiz of Ech. margaritaceus as
the correct one, I had omitted to examine this question more closely. According to a kind informa-
tion from Dr. Gravier the type specimen is no more found in Paris. But to judge by the figures in

Voyage de Venus» there can scarcely be any doubt that Agassiz’s (and my) interpretation of Ach.
margaritaceus is incorrect; besides the ocular plates being shut off from the periproct, it seems also to
appear from these figures that there is a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. But then I
do not see how S¢. magellanicus is to be distinguished from margaritaceus, and it is an obvious sup-

position that they are really one species; if this be the case the name of magellanicus will only be a
The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 1. 23

178 ECHINOIDEA. I.

synonym of margaritaceus. The species described above as margaritaceus, will, if margaritaceus and
magellanicus really be identical, get the name of Stevech. diadema (Studer), in which species Sterech.
antarcticus (Koehler) is to be included as a synonym. With regard to the geographical distribution
it will, I suppose, be proved that SZ diadema (margaritaceus?) only occurs in the seas round Kerguelen,
St. margaritaceus (magellanicus) round Patagonia — analogous with Stereocidaris nutrix and canali-
culata, The statements of dadema (under the name of margaritaceus) from Patagonia, I think will
have to be referred to horrzdus, which is, as to habitus, very similar to this species"). It is still to be
observed that .S7. diadema has a distinct genital papilla.

Sterechinus horridus (p. 102). There are no plates in the buccal membrane outside of the buccal
plates, which carry spines. The actinal primary spines are not curved. The character pointed out in
the diagnosis of the genus Sterechinus (p.135), that the buccal membrane is almost or quite naked
outside of the buccal plates, is thus correct.

Pseudechinus albocinctus (p. 104). One of the anal plates is somewhat larger than the others,
and carries a larger tubercle. No spines on the buccal plates.

Parechinus microtuberculatus (p. 107). The type specimen of this species is the common Medi-
terranean form; the statement of Blainville that it has 6 pairs of pores in each arc, is thus incorrect.

Spherechinus austrahe (p.117). Has a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates. Otherwise
the specimen examined by me, is so very similar to SA. granularis, that I should not be surprised, if
it proved to be this species (— and in this case it is surely not from Australia —); perhaps I have
then not seen the real Spz. australie at all.

Strongylocentrotus intermedius and chlorocentrotus (pp. 120—121). What I have hitherto regarded
as Str. intermedius is not this species, but Str. palcherrimus (comp. my supposition expressed on p. 121
that peulcherrimus, intermedius, and chlorocentrotus (2?) might be one species). The real zztermedis,
which I got to know from Prof. Déderlein, is as to habitus very similar to drobachiensis, also
with regard to pedicellarize and spicules, but is — according to Déderlein’s (not published) examina-
tions — distinguished from this by having a considerably larger number of plates in both areas, and
a rather smaller apical area than specimens of dvobachiensis of the same size. At all events the two
species are very closely allied.

Strongylocentrotus» gibbosus (p.123). The examination of the pedicellarize of one of the type
specimens in Paris shows that this species is an Echinometrid, I suppose of the genus Zoxoczdaris, or
perhaps a new genus. With the genus Loxechinus this species has nothing to do; the specimen (Chall.
st. 304), by which I referred gzbdosus to this genus, is thus wrongly determined (what I had a slight
impression of — comp. the incongruity in the relation of the ocular plates mentioned loc. cit.). Besides

the two type specimens (Expedition de la Bonite. M. Gaudichaud. 1837) two specimens are found in

1) When the remarks Jabove were printed, I received from the museum in «Jardin des Plantes» a specimen called
Ech. margaritaceus from Cape Horn, 1894 (Coll. Cotteau). As to habitus it resembles dvadema, the secondary spines, however,
being somewhat coarser. All the ocular plates are shut off from the periproct; distinct central plate, as in @adema. Primary
tubercle on every other ambulacral plate — somewhat indistinct towards the apical area. Primary spines round the mouth
curved at the point; a few spines on the buccal plates. The pedicellariee as in d/adema. — Thus this specimen agrees neither
with diadema, horridus, nor Neumayeri; nevertheless it seems rather irrational to interpret it as a separate species. The
supposition that diadema, horridus, and Neumayeri are all together only one very varying species, seems to me to be rather
obvious. But to decide this question a great material will be necessary.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 179
the museum of Paris called Str. gzbbosus Val. (1. Galapagos. M. Rousseau. 1846). They are Spher-
echinus granularis (or, if they be really from Galapagos, another Spherechinus-species (australi@?)). On
the back of the label is written «acheté a Londres» — thus the locality cannot be regarded as reliable.

Paracentrotus Gaimardi |p. 124). On a specimen of this species in the museum of Paris (the
type specimen of Ach. aciculatus Hupé, which is a synonym of Gaimardz) | have found a small triden-
tate pedicellaria; it was somewhat broken, but showed nevertheless sufficiently that it is similar to
those of P. lividus, so that a specific character is scarcely to be found in it.

Anthocidaris homalostoma (p.125). The type specimens of “ch. homalostoma Val. are two naked
tests that are really very similar to Azthocidaris; but it cannot be decided by the naked tests whether
they are the same species. The locality (New Zealand) tells against the identity. I have above (loc.
cit.) said that the name of homalostoma would have to be used whether they be identical or not.
According to the opinion of Déderlein expressed to me, this is incorrect, and I shall readily submit
to his authority. Then the species will get the name of Axthocidaris crassispina (Ag.).

Strongylocentrotus nudus (pp. 126, 140). A specimen of this species (from Hakodadi — Japan)
I have examined in Strassburg. No globiferous pedicellarize were found on it, but the spicules show
it to be a genuine Sfrongylocentrotus. The tridentate pedicellariz occur in three different forms, as
in drobachiensis; a short, broad one (1°5™") resembling that figured on Pl. XX. Fig. 20; a long, narrow
one (2™") resembling that figured on Pl. XX. Fig.6, only more serrate below; and finally a small one
(ca.o5™"), more particularly corresponding to the third form in drodbachienszs (Pl. XX. Fig. 4); it is simply
leaf-shaped with quite straight edge, without marked indentations. The other pedicellarize show no
peculiarities.

Strongylocentrotus mexicanus (pp. 126, 140). The specimens from Chili mentioned by Sluiter
(371), are Echinometrids — but whether they be really S¢v. mexicanus, is perhaps not quite sure, so
the systematic position of this species must continue to be regarded as doubtful.

Echinus elegans (p.145). The specimens from Cape Verd («Gazelle») noted by Studer as Zch.
elegans ?, are two small naked tests; one is doubtless Genocidaris maculata, the other I suppose to be
a Parechinus, but it cannot be decided with certainty.

Echinus affints (p.152). For this species I can add one more locality, having found in the
museum of Paris some specimens from 39°38’ N. L. 70°56’ W.L. 1241 fathoms («Blake»); they were
called Ech. norvegicus.

Echinus acutus, var. norvegicus (p. 155). Some small specimens from the Faroe Channel
(«Michael Sars» 150—217 fathoms, Ad. S. Jensen) have a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral plates
and upon the whole in regular series; they are only irregular as to size, especially a few ones at the
ambitus being disproportionately large. Upon the whole the ambulacral areas have here quite the
same appearance as in some specimens of Ech. af/fnis. They are then to be distinguished from this
species by the colour and the globiferous pedicellariz, the latter having in @//is 2—2 (more rarely
2—3) lateral teeth, while in worvegicus they have 1—1 or 1—2 lateral teeth. The tridentate pedicellariz
of the two species are so similar, that no distinguishing character can be found in this feature. On
the other hand the spicules of the stalk of the pedicellariz is a good character of xorvegicus — when

they are found, but they are no constant feature. — Evidently Zch. affinis is more particularly allied

235

180 ECHINOIDEA. I.

to var. morvegicus, and they represent both of them transitional forms between the species with
primary tubercle on every ambulacral plate and those with primary tubercle only on every other
ambulacral plate. — The specimens of xorvegicus mentioned here, have a specially small peristome,
accordingly they belong to the form mzcrostoma.

Echinus esculentus (p. 161). The specimens of this species from the Mediterranean found in
Amsterdam and in British Museum, are correctly determined, but have been got from older collections,
or bought from dealers in natural objects; consequently the locality is unreliable, and, as we have no
other statements of the occurrence of this species in the Mediterranean, evidently wrong. This holds
also good with regard to the specimens stated to be from Port Natal. The specimen after which the
species is noted from the coasts of Spain and Portugal by Bell and Hoyle, is Parechinus miliaris.
The specimen of “ch. escalentus («Talisman». Cape Spartel, 717 m.) mentioned by Bernard, is Ech.
elegans. — The determinations by Bernard of the Achimus species, are otherwise quite confused:
«melo» is acutus, «norvegicus» is Alexandri, «acutus» is a typical var. norvegicus. — The specimen from
Brazil (John Adam’s Bank) is stated to have been obtained by the «Herald»-Expedition; it is correctly
determined, with a label within it; accordingly there can apparently be no doubt of the correctness.
As we have not, however, other statements of the occurrence of the species off Brazil, I must for the
present remain sceptical with regard to this statement. The other distribution of the species does not
indicate that it should really be found off Brazil.

Through Prof. Bell I have received a new Fchinus-species (from Department in the course of

fishing investigations), taken west of Ireland («Porcupine»-bank, 91 fathoms), 2 specimens.

; Diameter. | Largest breadth. || Number of plates. |
Dia- Height. ———— a —_—— —| Longest
meter. ie . : | Ambula- | Interambula- | Ambula- | Interambula- | spines.
|| Peristome. | Apical es| cral area. cral area. | cral area. | cral area. |
all | | | | | | ies
57 45 20 | 12 | 13 20 | ¢& 38 | 18 | 13
|| |
33 23 || 14 8 7 12 | 22—23 | 14 ?

All the measures are in millimetres.

The test is almost globular, especially in the large specimen; the edge of the mouth not
curved invard. There are spines on the buccal plates; numerous, rather thick plates in the buccal
membrane. No ocular plates reach to the periproct. Only every other ambulacral plate has a primary
tubercle; on the other plates there is a rather large secondary tubercle in the inner end and one a
little outside of the primary series, near the pores; otherwise there are almost no tubercles in the
ambulacral area. The pores reach quite to the edge of the area. Each interambulacral plate has a
primary tubercle and moreover ca. 4—6 secondary ones, which are, however, far from filling the plate,
so that the test looks rather naked. The primary series are distinct. Miliary tubercles numerous.
On the actinal side the tubercles are placed much more closely. Here the spines are rather long,
directed straight downward, not flat or widened at the point; the abactinal spines short and fine. Pedi-
cellarize and spicules quite as in &ch. esculentus. The colour of the preserved specimens white. — After

a communication from the Rey. Canon A. M. Norman it is this species he has described as ch.

ECHINOIDEA.

ISI

esculentus var. tenutspina (p. 162), and so it gets the name of Echinus tenuispinus n. sp. It is, as

seen by Norman, closely allied to esculentus, with which it agrees in the most important characters:

primary tubercie only on every other ambulacral plate, and spines on the buccal plates; it is easily

distinguished from the latter by having far fewer
tubercles, among which the primary series are very
distinct, and by its white colour — esculentus seems
always to keep the colour in spirit. I am decidedly of
opinion that it must be regarded as an independent
species, not only as a variety of esculentus. It differs
considerably as to habitus from this species, among
whose forms I know no specimens with which it may
be confounded. What I, above (p. 162), have interpreted
as var. fenuispinus, is a peculiar form with short, fine
spines, but with the usual colour of the test (from the
Faroe Islands); accordingly it is not identical with
Norman’s var. tenuispinus.

Strongylocentrotus» lividus (p.165) is by Sluiter (371)

mentioned from Dogger Bank — it is St. drobachiensis.

tig. 12. Echinus tenuispinus n. sp. Natural size.
(From a photograph.)

Finally I shall call attention to the fact that no single regular Echinid belongs to the large

cold depth north of Iceland. The account of the geographical distribution must otherwise be put off

until the whole Echinid-material has been examined.

aie 1 erent

Ge RTS REG Thali Ste eral) al ite” Sues
SSS rity Toerhin (ats TeRNee oye wh wis AP inhe din se Tie i ad
af sae ; 7 =e try Lychee) NW) es morte They. WPM bys if ie oatanmiion wilde aT

rn
—— a i eu ial ee er
: en 7 a a) . -
ee, a
7 a a i ri a
F Sa5 agate’ wah\suil haa oa Rp “a: pay
_* : - :
DIA Hialt hae eye axe sive awe

| 7 , Sug Gh iia). » ts
Y ae anal ite i*N Weert Te =T Payout
aid oA, i

TOL | aces wre Ghee wd his ape

rai V4 j (DEO pe ooh eh is a

F : a: Say) ae va delal OA ee AE ith .
f 3 et : aie - et 7 ~hit i Y HUD ENR ee re. H

ia > 4 : a 4 " :

j aan ip c= 7 in i

‘a ae _

kn = wordnet ay f ‘where
al yf shoddy pe | ay *) ACHE et VORA @eniey ial iam '
| ore fo NE Ai ee aa ae word Sapeylinin
| x , ap sf Asst crt ogy Avail nH) i yea ao
. of Shnte a a PONE derok on (hepa orl y Bh gte te ter. i
; - ' “honieyses pee Sal Teh steel tos He cn Hye
i j

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

List of the works, which have appeared since 1872, containing systematic descriptions of and notes on recent
Echinids or remarks on their geographical distribution. Of other works on Echinids, anatomical, histological or embrylogical,
only those have been named which seemed to be of importance for this work, thus especially works in which the pedicellarice
are treated. — A few works from 1871— 72, which are not named in the bibliography in «Revision of Echini» are also contained

in this list. Those few works, which I have not seen myself, are marked with

1. A. Agassiz: The Homologies of Pedicellarie. Americ. 13. A. Agassiz: Reports on the Dredging Operations .... by
Naturalist. VII. 1873. p. 398-406. (Also in «Rev. of | the U.S. Fish Comm. Steamer «Albatross» 1891. XXIII.
Echini». Part IV. p. 659 seq.) Preliminary Report on the Echini. Ibid. XXXII. 1898.

2. — The Echini collected on the Hassler Expedition. Bull. p- 71-86. Pl. I-XIII.

Mus. Comp. Zool. III. 1873. p. 187-90. 14. — & L. F.de Pourtalés: Zoological results of the Hassler

3. — On viviparous Echini from Kerguelen Islands. Proc. Expedition. I. Echini, Crinoids and Corals. Ilustr.
Amer. Acad. of Arts & Sc. N. Ser. III. 1876. p. 231-36. Catalogue. Mus. Comp. Zool. No. VIII. 1874. Echini.

4. — Reports on the Results of Dredging ...... in the Gulf | p- 1-24. Pl. I-IV.
of Mexico by the U. S. Coast Survey Steamer «Blake». | 15. A. Alcock: Natural History Notes from H. M. Indian marine
II. Report on the Echini. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. V. Survey Steamer «Investigator». Ser. II. No.g. An
1878, p. 185-94. Pl. I-V. account of the Deep-Sea collection made during the

5. — Preliminary Report on the Echini of the exploring Expe- Season of 1892-93. Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal. LXII.
dition of H. M.S. «Challenger». Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 1893. p. 169-84. Pl. 8-9.

& Sc. XIV (N. Ser. VI). 1879. p. 190-212. 16. — Illustrations of the Zoology of the Royal Indian marine

6. — Reports on the Results of Dredging ..... in the Carib- Survey steamer «Investigator». Echinoderma. Part IT.
bean Sea 1878-79 and along the Atlantic Coast of the 1895.

U. S. during the Summer of 1880, by the U. S. Coast — see Wood-Mason.
Survey Steamer «Blake». IX. Preliminary Report on 17. E. I. Allen: On the Fauna and bottom deposits near the
the Echini. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. VIII. 1880. p. 69-84. thirty fathom line from the Eddystone Grounds to the

7. — Note on some points in the History of the Synonymy Star Point. Journ. Marine Biol. Assoc. of the United
of the Echini. Proc. Zool. Soc. London. 1880. p. 33-38. Kingdom. V. 1899. p. 365-542. Distribution and habits

8. — Report on the scientific results of the Voyage of H. M. of Echinids. p. 472-76..

S. «Challenger». Zoology. Vol. III. Report on the 18. A.R.S,Anderson: Natural History Notes from H. M. Indian
Echinoidea. 1881. marine Survey Steamer «Investigator». Ser. II. No. 16.

g. — Reports on the results of Dredging in the Gulf of Mexico On the Echinoidea collected during the season 1593-94.
(1877-78), in the Caribbean Sea (1878-79) and along Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal. LXIII. 1894. p. 188-95.
the Atlantic coast of the United States (1880) by the | 19. — Report of the Surgeon Naturalist for the season ending
U.S. Coast Survey Steamer «Blake». XXIV. Part I. 31 March 1898. Report of the Marine Survey of India.
Report on the Echini. 32 Pl. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. 1897-98. p. 5-12.

Vol. X. 1883. 20. H. J. van Ankum: Kalklichaampjes bij Echinometra lu-

10. — Echinoidea of the Faroe Channel (Exploration of the Faroe cunter Ag. Tijdschr. Nederl. Dierk. Vereenig. I. 1876.
Channel during the Summer of 1880 in H. M. hired p- 185-96. Pl. g-1o.

Ship «Knight Errant»). Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh. XI. 21. Anonym: Anthozoa and Echinodermata of the Gulf Stream
1882. p. 697-98. Slope of the New England Coast (U. S. Fish Commis-

11. —— Three Cruises of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey | sion). American Naturalist XXIV. 1890. p. 183-86.
Steamer «Blake». Vol. II. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. XV. 22. — «A moving Grove». Natural Science. V. 1894. p. 169-70.
1888. (Echinids. p. 88-101). 23. A, Appell6f: Om Bergeustjordens faunistiske Preeg. Bergens

12. — Reports on the Dredging operations off the West Coast Mus. Arsberetn. 1891. 14 pp.
of Central America to the Galapagos .... by the U.S. 24. — Faunistiske Undersogelser i Herlofjorden. Bergens Mus.
Fish Comm. Steamer «Albatross» during 1891. II. Arbog. 1894-95. 11 pp-

General Sketch of the Expedition of the «Albatross». | 25. — Faunistiske Undersogelser i Osterfjorden. Ibid. 1596.

Ibid. XXIII. 1892. p. 80-82. «Comparison of the Deep- | 26. C. W. S. Aurivillius: Hafsevertebrater fran nordligaste
Water Echini obtained in the Panamic and Caribbean Troms6 Amt och Vest Finmarken. Bihang till Svenska
district. » Vet. Akad. Handl. XI. 1887. 4. 56 pp. Echinoidea. p. 48.

184

29.

48.

49.

. — Echinoidea, in

34. Bavay:

. H, Ayers: On the Structure and Function of the Sphzeridia |

of the Echinoidea. Quart. Journ. Micr. Se. N. Ser.
XXVI. 1885. p. 39-52. Pl. 5.
. J. Barrois: Note sur une nouvelle forme Parasite des Firoles.
Journ. de l’Anat. et dela Physiol. XXIII. 1887. p. 1-17.
Pl. I-II. (comp. Ludwig 261.)
Th. Barrois: Catalogue des Crustacés podophthalmaires et
des Echinodermes recueillis A Concarneau. Lille 1882.
8°. p. 34-59. Pl. 1-3.
. — Liste des Echinodermes recueillis aux Acores durant les
mois d’Aotit et Septembre 1887. Reyue biol. du Nord
de la France. I. 1888.
. W. Bateson: Materials for the study of variation, treated
with especial regard to discontinuity in the origin of
London 1884. 8°. Chapter XVII. Echino-
p- 441-47. Variation in number of radii in

species.
dermata ;
Echinids.

. F. A. Bather: Evolution of a protective habit in Sea-Urchins.

Nat. Science. VI. 1895. p. 72.
The scientific results of the Challenger
Ibid. VII. 1895. p. 44—46.

Préparation des Echinides
XXIII.

Expedition».
Feuille des
1893. N° 267. p.43—44.

a sec.
jeunes Naturalistes.
(Comp. 93.)

Beddard see Geddes.

. F. P. Bedford: On Echinoderms from Singapore and
Malacca. Proc. Zool. Soc. London. 1900. p. 271-99.
Pl. 21-24.

. Ch. E. Beecher: The origin and significance of spines:

a Study in Evolution. Amer. Journ. Se. 4. Ser. VI.
1898. p. 1-20, 125-36, 249-68, 329-59.

. F. Jeffr. Bell: Observations on the Characters of the Echi-

noidea. I. On the species of the Genus Brissus and
on the allied forms Meoma and Metalia. Proc. Zool.
Soc. London. 1879. p. 249-55.

Observations ete. II. On the species of the Genus Tri-
pneustes. Agass. Ibid. 187g. p. 655-62. pl. 49.

— Observations ete. III. On some genera and species of
the Temnopleuride. Ibid. 1880. p. 422-40. pl. 41.
Observations ete. IV. The Echinometride, their affini-
ties and systematic position. Ibid. 1881. p. 410-33.
Note on the number of anal plates in Echinocidaris. Tbid.

1879. Pp. 436-37.

On Paleolampas, a new genus of Echinoidea. Ibid. 1880.
p- 43-49. pl. 4.

On the names applied to certain Echinoidea. Ibid. 188o.
p- 220-22.

Exhibition of an immature Echinid. Ibid. 1880. p. 356-58.

Note on an abnormal (quadriradiate) specimen of Ambly-
pneustes formosus. Journ. Linn. Soc. London. Zoo-
logy. XV. 1880. p. 126-29. pl. 5.

Account of the zoological collections made during the
Survey of H. M.S. «Alert» in the straits of Magellan
and on the coast of Patagonia. IX. Echinodermata.
Proc. Zool. Soc. London. 1881. p. 87-101. pl. 8-9.

— Description of a new species of the Genus Mespilia. Ibid.

(S81. p. 433-35:

On the apparent retention of a suranal plate by a young
Echinometra. Journ. Linn. Soc. London.
XV. 1881. p. 318-20.

Report on a collection made by Mr. ‘T. Conry in Ascen-
sion Island. Echinodermata. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.
5. Ser. VIII. 1881. p. 436-38.

Zoology.

55:

68.

609.

70.

ECHINOIDEA.

If

. F. Jeffr. Bell: Note on the Spicules found in the ambulacral

tubes of the regular Echinoidea. Journ. R. Microsc. Soc.
2. Ser. II. 1882. p. 297-99. pl. 5.

Note on the Echinoderm Fauna of the Island of Ceylon,
together with some observations on Heteractinism.
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser. X. 1882. p. 218-25.

Observations on the generic and specific Characters of
the Laganide. Ibid. 5. Ser. XI. 1883. p. 130—36.

On the species of Pseudoboletia. Ibid. 5. Ser. XIII. 1884.
p- 108-11.

Report on the Echinodermata collected by Mr. F. Day in
H. M. S. «Triton» off the eastern Coast of Scotland
in July 1882. Journ. Linn. Soc. London. Zoology.
XVII. 1884. p. 102-4.

Report on the zoological collection made in the Indo-
pacific Ocean during the yoyage of H. M.S. «Alert».
1881-82. London. 1884. Echinodermata. p. 117-77,
509-12. pl. 8-17& 45.

On the generic position and relations of Echinanthus
tumidus Woods. Proc. Zool. Soc. London. 1884.
p- 40-43. pl. 2.

Notes on the structural Characters of the spines of
Echinoidea (Cidarida). Journ. R. microse. Soc. 2. Ser.
IV. 1854. p. 846-50. pl. 13.

Report on a Collection of Echinodermata from Australia.
Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales. IX. 1884. p. 496-511.
On the Echinoderm Fauna of the Island of Ceylon. Rep.

Brit. Ass. f. Ady. of Science. 1885. p. 1065.

On a species of Echinocardium from the Channel Islands.
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser. XVII. 1886. p. 516-17.

A new species of Nucleolites, with remarks on the sub-
divisions of the genus. Ibid. 5.Ser. XX. 1887. p. 125-27.

Description of a new species of Evechinus. Ibid. 5. Ser.
XX. 1887. p. 403-5. pl. 17.

778.

Report on a collection of Echinodermata from the
Andaman Islands. Proc. Zool. Soc. London. 1887.

p- 139-45. pl. 16.

The Echinoderm Fauna of the Island of Ceylon. Scientif.
Transact. R. Dublin Soe. III. 1887. p. 643-58.
pl. 39-40.

On the Echinodermata of the Sea of Bengal. Rep. Brit.
Assoc. f. Ady. of Se. 1888. p. 718.

Notes on the Echinoderms collected at Port Philip by
Mr. I. Bracebridge Wilson. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.
6. Ser. II. 1888. p. 4or-7.

Report on a collection of Echinoderms made at Tuti-
corin, Madras, by Mr. Edgar Thurston. Proc. Zool.
Soe. London. 1888. p. 383-89.

2. Ser.

Note on the relative claims to recognition of the generic
names Arbacia Gray and Echinocidaris Des Moulins.
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 6. Ser. III. 1889. p. 290.

Report on a deep-sea trawling Cruise off the S. W. Coast of
Ireland, under the direction of Rey. W.Spotswood Green.
Echinodermata. Ibid. 6.Ser. IV. 1889. p.432-35. pl. 18-19.

- Note on the Echinoderms collected by Mr. Bourne in

Deep Water off the South West of Ireland in H. M.S.

Research». Journ. Mar. biol. Assoc. of the United
Kingdom. N. Ser. I. 18. p. 324-27.

On the arrangement and interrelations of the Classes of
the Echinodermata. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 6.Ser. VIII.
ISgl. p. 206-15.

On the Echinoderms collected by the S.s. «Fingal» in
1890 and by the S.s. «Harlequin» in 1891 off the West

73:

~
on

76.

“I
—I

79:

So.

81.
82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.
89.

go.

gl.

92.

94.

The Ingolf-Expedition.

ECHINOIDEA. I.

Coast of Ireland. Scientif. Proc. R. Dublin Soc.
VII. 1891-92. p. 520-29. pl. 23-25.
F. Jeffr. Bell: Catalogue of the British Echinoderms in the
British Museum. London 1892. 202 pp. 16 pl.
Description of a remarkable new Sea-Urchin of the genus
Cidaris from Mauritius. Transact. Zool. Soc. London.
XIII. 1893. p. 303-4. pl. 38.
On the Echinoderms collected during the voyage of
H. M.S. «Penguin» and by H. M.S. «Egeria» when
surveying Macclesfield Bank. Proc. Zool. Soc. London.
1894, p- 392-413. pl. 23-27.
On the Actinogonidiate Echinoderms collected by Mr.
I. Stanley Gardiner at Funafuti and Rotuma. Ibid.
1898. p. 849-50.
Report on the Echinoderms (other than Holothurians)
collected by Dr. Willey.
sults. Part II. Cambridge. 1899. p. 133-40.
see Haddon.
. Bernard: Liste des Echinides recueillis pendant les
croisiéres du «Travailleur» et du «Talisman». Bull.
Mus. Paris. 1895. p. 207-9.
Echinides recueillis par l’expédition du Cap Horn.
-83.. Ibid. 1895. p. 272-74.
. Bidenkap: Undersogelser over Lyngenfjordens Everte-
bratfauna. I. Storfjorden. Tromso Mus. Arshefter. 20.
1897. p. 81-103.
Tromsosundets Echinodermer. Ibid. p. 104-12.
. Bolau: Die Spatangiden des Hamburger Museums. Pro-
gram der Realschule des Johanneums. Hamburg. 1873.
23 pp. I Pl.

Neue Spatangiden des Hamburger Museums.
Naturgesch. 4o. 1874. p. 175-78. Pl. 6.

. Boutan: Voyage dans la mer Rouge. Rey. biol. du Nord
de France. IV-V. 1892. IV. p. 173-83, 210-23, 266-72, 351
-62, 403-10, 463-68, 502-10; V. p. 40-44, 53-69. Pl. VII-X.
PIESVAT.

Braun: Verzeichniss der Echinodermen des Hafens von
Mahon, Menorca. Sitzungsber. d. Naturf. Gesellsch.
d. Univ. Dorpat. VII. 1886. p. 307-10.

Broom: Exhibit of Rotula Rumphii from Sierra Leone.
Proc. Nat. Hist. Soc. of Glasgow. N. Ser. II.
P- 34-

N. Ser.

1882

M.

R.
1890,

L. Camerano: Osservazioni intorno al Dimorfismo sessuale |

degli Echinodermi. Boll. dei Musei di Zool. ed Anat.
Comp. d. R. Univ. di Torino. V. 1890. No. 91.
— & Lessona: Compendio della Fauna italica.
1885. p- 297-300.
I. V. Carus: Prodromus Faune mediterranez. I. p. 85-111.
Stuttgart. 1884. 8”.

H.C. Chadwick: Second Report on the Echinodermata of
the L. M. B. C. District. Proc. Liverpool Biol. Soc. III.
1889. p. 174-80.

Note on a tetramerous specimen of Echinus esculentus.
Proc. & Transact. Liverpool. Biol. Soc. XII. 1898. p. 288
-go. pl. 17.

Memoirs on typical British marine plants and animals.
Ed. by W. A. Herdman. III. Echinus. Liverpool ma-
rine biol. Committee. 1900. (Also Proc. & Transact.
Liverpool Biol. Soc. XIV.)

. Chevreux: Préparation des Echinides 4 sec. Feuille d.

jeunes Naturalistes. XXIII. 1893. p. 78. (Comp. 34.)

Chun: Aus den Tiefen des Weltmeeres.

von der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. Jena. 1900.

Torino.

Cc.

[Vente

A. Willey. Zoological Re- |

Arch. f.

Schilderungen |

185

95. H. Lym. Clark: Zoological Jamaica. Nat. Science. XIII.
1898. p. 161-71.

96. — The Echinoids and Asteroids of Jamaica. Johns Hop-
kins Univ. Cire. 18. 1898. No. 137.

97. — Notes on the Echinoderms of Bermuda. Ann. New
York Acad. XI. 1898. p. 407-13.

gS. — Further notes on the Echinoderms of Bermuda. Ibid.
XII. 1899. p. 117-38. 1 pl.

g8a.— Echinoderms from Puget Sound: Observations on the

Echinoderms collected by the parties from Columbia
University, in Puget Sound, in 1896 and 1897. Proc.
Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. XXIX. rgor. p. 323-34. 4 Pl.
g8b.— Bermudan Echinoderms. A report on observations and
collections made in 1899. Ibid. XXIX. 1901. p.339-44-
A, Collin see Meissner.
g9. Jonas Collin: Limfjordens marine Fauna.
1884. 8°. Echinodermer. p.

Kobenhayn.

23.

100. G, Cotteau: Note sur un nouveau genre d’ Echinide vivant.
Bull. Soc. Zool. de France. XIV. 188g. p. 15.

— Echinides recueillis par M.Jullien sur les c6tes de Guinée.
Ibid. XIV. 1889. p. 340—42.

— Description de trois Echinides vivants recueillis par le
Dr. I. Jullien, sur les cétes de Guinée (Libéria). Con-
grés Internat. de Zool. Compte-rendu des scéances.
Paris. 1889. p. 281-92. pl. 2-5.

— Note sur le groupe des Clypéastrides.
de l’Assoc. France. pour l’Avane. d. Sciences.
I8gI. p. 390-96.

E. Coues & H.C. Yarrow: Notes on the natural History
of Fort Mahon, N. C, and vicinity. Proc. Ac. Nat:
Se. Philadelphia. 1878. p. 297-315.

105. P. Couteaud: Rapport sommaire sur les collections d’hi-

ot.

102.

103. Comptes Rendus

XIX.

104.

stoire naturelle faites pendant la campagne de «la
Manche» a Vile Jan Mayen et au Spitzberg. Arch.

d. Missions scientif. V. 1893. p. 145-54.
106. H. Coutiére: Notes sur les récifs madréporiques de Dji-
bouti. Bull. Mus. d’hist. nat.
155-57:
— Observations sur quelques animaux des récifs madré-
poriques de Djibouti. Ibid. 1898. p. 238-40.
Cuénot see Janet.
108. K. W. v. Dalla Torre: Fauna von Helgoland. Zool. Jahrb.
Abth. f. System. Suppl. H. 2. 188g.

tog. D.C. Danielssen & T. Koren: Fra den norske Nordhays-
expedition. Nyt Magaz. f. Naturvidensk. XXVII. 1883.
p- 267-99. 4 Pl.

110. — Echinida. Norske Nordhaysexpedition. Zoologi. XXI.
1892. 2 pp. I Pl.

111. C. B. Davenport: The Fauna and Flora about Coldspring
Harbour. Science. N. Ser. VIIL 1898. p. 685-89.

*r12. P. Dautzenberg: Atlas de poche des coquilles des cétes

de France (Manche, Océan, Méditerranée) communes,

Suivi d'un appendice

sur les Crustacés, Oursins etc. les plus communes
par V. de Cléves: Paris. 1897. 16°. 153 pp. 72 pl.
113. A. Dendy: Notes on a remarkable collection of marine
animals lately found on the New Brighton Beach,
near Christchurch, New Zealand. Transact. & Proc.
New Zealand. Inst. XXX. 1898. p. 320-26.

114. L. Déderlein: Seeigel von Japan und den Liu-Kiu Inseln.
Arch. f. Naturgesch. 51. I. 1885. p. 73-112.

115. — Hine recente «Cidaris buchi». Neues Jahrb. f. Mineral.,

1886. I. p. 192-94.

Paris. 1898. p. 87-90.

107.

pittoresques ou comestibles.

Geol. u. Palzeont.

186 ECHINOIDEA. I.

116. L. Déderlein: Die japanischen Seeigel. I. Familien Cida- 137. P.M. Duncan & W.P. Sladen: On the Family Arbaciade
ridz und Saleniide. Stuttgartt. 1887. 4°. 59pp. 11pl Gray, Part 1. The morphology of the test in the

117. — Echinodermen von Ceylon. Bericht iiber die von den genera Coelopleurus and Arbacia. Journ. Linn. Soc.
Herren Dres Sarasin gesammelten Asteroidea, Ophiu- London. Zoology. XIX. 1885. p. 25-57. pl. 1-2.
roidea und Echinoidea. Zool. Jahrb. Abth. f. Syst. II. | 138. — — On some points in the Morphology and classification
1888. p. 821-46. pl. 31-33. | of the Saleniidze Agass. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser.

118. — Diagnosen einiger von der Valdivia-Expedition gesam- XIX. 1887. p. 117.37.
melter Seeigel-Arten aus dem Indischen Ocean. Zool. | 139. — — On the Echinoidea of the Mergui Archipelago, col-
Anzeiger. XXIII rgo1. Nr. 633. p. 19-23. lected for the Trustees of the Indian Museum, Cal-

119. — Zoologische Ergebnisse einer Untersuchungsfahrt des | cutta, by Dr. John Anderson. Journ. Linn. Soc.
deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins nach den Bareninsel | London. Zoology. XXI. 1889. p. 316-19.
und Westspitzbergen, ausgefiihrt im Sommer 1898 | 140. Ebert: Uber dieGattung Spatangus. Zeitschr. d. deutschen
auf S. M.S. «Olga». Die Echinodermen. Wissensch. geol. Gesellsch. 39. 1887. p. 229-30.
Meeresuntersuch., herausgeg. v. d. Komm. z. Unters. | 141. M. Efisio: Saggio d’un Catalogo metodico dei principali
d. deutschen Meere in Kiel und d. biol. Anstalt auf | e piu communi animali invertebrati della Sardegna.
Helgoland. N. F. IV. Abth. Helgoland. H. 2. 1goo. Boll. della Soc. Rom. Stud. Zool. I. 1893. p. 246-81.
p- 195-235. pl. IV-X. p. 236-48. 142. R, P. F. Casto de Elera: Catalogo sistematico de toda la

121.

122.

124.

125.

130.

20. A. Dohrn: Mittheilungen aus und iiber die zoologische Sta-

tion von Neapel. Offenes Sendschreiben an Prof. Dr. C.

Th. v. Siebold. Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zoologie. XXV. 1875.
I. E. Duerden: Notes on the marine Zoology of Kingston

Harbour. Journ. Inst. Jamaica. Il. 1896. p. 282-85.

P.M. Duncan: On the Saleniidze Wright. Observations on
the morphology of recent Salenize and description
of a new species. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 4. Ser. XX.
1877. p. 70-73, 245-57. Pl. Il. B, VII.

On the Saleniidze Wright. Part III. On a third form
of recent Salenize and on the Salenize from the Ter-
tiary deposits. Ibid. 5. Ser. II. 1878. p. 59-67.

On some points in the morphology of the test of the
Temnopleuride. Journ. Linn. Soc. London. Zoology.
XVI. 1882. p. 343-58. pl. 8.

position and alliances. Ibid. XVI. 1852. p. 447-54.
On the Anatomy of the Ambulacra of the recent Dia-
dematidee. Ibid. XIX. 1885. p. 95-114. pl. 5.
On the classificatory position of Hemiaster elongatus.
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser. XV. 1885. p. 72.

— On the «Tag» of Coelopleurus Maillardi Mich. Ibid.
5. Ser. XVI. 1885. p. 88-89.
— On the perignathic girdle of the Echinoidea. Journ.

Linn. Soc. London.
pl. 30-31.

Remarks on Dr. Hamann’s researches in the morphology
of the Echinoidea. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5.Ser. XVIII.
1886. p. 66-69.

On some points in the Anatomy of the Temnopleuride.
Ibid. 6. Ser. I. 1888. p. 109-31. pl. XI.

A revision of the genera and great groups of the Echi-
noidea, Journ. Linn. Soc. London. Zoology. XXII.
1889. p. I-31I.

& W. P. Sladen:
lected during the arctic expedition 1875—76.
Mag. Nat. Hist. 4. Ser. XX. 1877. p. 449-70.

— Echinodermata in: Nares’ Narrative of a voyage
to the Polar Sea during 1875-76 in H. M.S. «Alert»
and «Discovery» with notes on the natural History.
(8°). Vol. II. 1878. p. 260-80.

A memoir on the Echinodermata of the Arctic Sea
to the West of Greenland. 1881. (4°). 52 pp. 6 pl.
The classificatory position of Hemiaster elongatus

Zoology. XUX. 1885. p. 179-212.

Report on the Echinodermata col-
Ann.

D.&S., a reply to a criticism by Prof. Sven Lovén.
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser. XIV. 1884. p. 225-42.

On the genus Pleurechinus L. Agass., its classificatory |

143.

144.

Fauna de Filipinas. III]. Molluscos y Radiados. 4°.
Manila. 1896. Equinodermos. p. 820-38.

R. Etheridge jun.: On the relationship existing between
the Echinothuride and the Perischoechinidee. Quart.
Journ. Geol. Soc. London. 1874. p. 307-16. pl. 24.

I. C. Ewart se I. Romanes.

H. Farquhar: Notes on New Zealand Echinoderms.
Transact. New Zealand Inst. XXVII. 1894. p. 194-208.
pl. 10-13.

145. — A Contribution to the history of New Zealand Echino-
derms. Journ. Linn. Soc. London. Zoology. XXVI.
1897. p. 186-98. pl. 13-14.

146. — On the Echinoderm Fauna of New Zealand. Proc.
Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales. 1898. p. 300-27.

147. I. W. Fewkes: Excavating habits of our common Sea-
Urchin. Americ. Naturalist. XXIII. 1889. p. 728-30.

148. — On excavations made by Sea-Urchins. Ibid. XXIV.
1890. p. I-21. Pl. LIL.

149. — Sea-Urchin excayations at Guaymas, Mexico. Ibid.
XXIV. 18g0. p. 478-80.

150. G. W. Field: Notes on the Echinoderms of Kingston Har-

151.

152.

154.

155.

bour, Jamaica. Johns Hopkins Univ. Circulars. 1892.
Nr. 97.

H. Filhol: Recherches zoologiques, botaniques et géo-
logiques faites 4 ile Campbell et en Nouyelle-Zélande.
Zoologie, Chap. X. Echinodermes. Recueil de mé-
moires, rapports et documents relatifs 4 l observation
du passage de Vénus sur le Soleil. III. (2.) 1885.
P. 572-73:

F. Fischer: Die Echinodermen von Jan Mayen. Die inter-
nationale Polarforschung. Die Gsterreichische Polar-
station Jan Mayen. III. 1886. p. 29-38.

. P. Fischer: Echinodermes des cétes de la Gironde et du

Sud-ouest de la France. Actes de la Soc. Linn. de
Bordeaux. XXVII. 1872. p. 358-76.

— & Folin: Exploration bathymétrique de la fosse du
Cap Breton. Comptes Rendus de l'Acad. d. Sc. 76.
1873. p. 582-85.

A. Foettinger: Sur la structure des Pédicellaires gem-
miformes de Spheerechinus granularis et d’autres
Echinides. Arch. de Biologie. II. 1881. p. 455-96.
pl. 26-28.

56. C. Forstrand: Methoder fér preparering och konservering

af Hafsdjur, samt nagra biologiska Iakttagelser fran
Bermudas Korallfauna. Biol. Féreningens Férhandl.

Stockholm. Il 18g0. p. 108-1).

ECHINOIDEA. I.

160.

161.
162.

163.

164.

169.

170.

. W. F. Ganong: The Echinodermata of New Brunswick.
Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. New Brunswick. VIL 1888.
p. 12-68.

Zoological Notes. Report of the Committee on marine
Invertebrate Zoology. Ibid. IX. r8go. p. 46-59.

Gasco: Descrizione di aleuni Echinodermi nuovi o per
la prima volta trovati nel mediterraneo. Rendiconti
della R. Acad. d. Scienze fis. e matem. di Napoli. XV. 2.
1877. p. 9-11. 1 pl.

Gauthier: Sur les Echinides, qui vivent aux environs
de Marseille. Comptes Rendus de l’Acad. d. Sc. 79.
1874. p. 401-4.

Une nouvelle classification des Echinides. Bull. Soc. d.
Sc. hist. et nat. de 'Yonne. 38. 1885. p. 176-94.

Contribution a l'étude des Echinides fossiles.
géol. de France. 3. Ser. XXV. 1897. p. 831-41. pl. 24.

. Geddes & F. E. Beddard: On the histology of the

Pedicellarize and of the muscles of Echinus spheera,
Transact. R. Soc. Edinburgh. 30. I. r88r. p. 383-95:
pl. 3. (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5.Ser. VII. 1881. p. 275-77.
Comptes Rendus de!’Acad. d. Se. 92. 1881. p. 308-10.)
A. Giard: On an Amphipod (Urothoé marina), a commensal
of Echinocardium cordatum. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.

4. Ser. XVII. 1876. p. 261—62.

nek.

Vv.

. Giebel: Echinothrix desori. Zeitschr. f. d. gesammten Natur-

wiss. 50. (3. Folge. IL) 1877. p. 319-20.

. — Seeigel der Gattung Phyllacanthus. Ibid. 51. (3. Folge,

III.) 1878. p. 863-64.

. E. Graeffe: Ubersicht iiber die Seethierfauna des Golfes

von Triest. I. Echinodermen.
Wien. III. 18$r. p. 333-44.

. ILE. Gray: List of Echinoderms collected by Rob.M’ Andrew
in the Gulf of Suez in the Red Sea. Ann. Mag. Nat.
Hist. 4. Ser. X. 1872. p. 115-24.

Arb. a. d. zool. Inst.

Bull. Soc. |

R. Greeff: Echinodermen, beobachtet auf einer Reise nach |

der Guinea-Insel Sao Thomé. Zool. Anzeiger. V. 1882. |

P- 114-20, 135-39, 156-59.
S. W. Green see Haddon.

on Pedinothuria and Helikodiadema, two new genera
of Echinoidea. Quarterl. Journ. Geol. Soc. London.
53. 1897. p. 112-22.

I. W. Gregory: On the affinities of the Echinothurida, and |

171. J. Grieg: Undersogelser over Dyrelivet i de vestlandske
Fjorde. If. Echinodermer, Annelider etc. Bergens
Mus. Arsberetn. 1888. Nr. 2. p- 1-76. 2. pl.

172. — Echinodermfaunaen i de Vestlandske Fjorde. Bergens
Mus. Arbog. 1894-95. Nr. 12. 13 pp. |

173. — Om Bukkenfjordens Echinodermer og Mollusker. Sta-
vanger Mus. Arsberetn. 1896. p. 34-46.

174. — Skrabninger i Vagsfjorden og Ulvesund, ytre Nordfjord.
Bergens Mus. Arbog. 1897. Nr. 16. 28 pp-

175. T. T. Groom: On some new features in Pelanechinus coral- |
linus. Quarterl. Journ. Geol. Soc. London. 43. 1887.
p- 703-14. pl. 28.

176. R.I. L. Guppy: Observations upon the physical conditions

and Fauna of the Gulf of Paria.
1895. p. 105-15. pl. 2.

. W. Haacke: Zur Morphologie der Seeigelschale.
Anzeiger. VII. p. 490-93.

. — Seeigelgewohnheiten, Tiefseefauna und Palontologie.
Biol. Centralblatt. VI. 1886-87. p. 641-47.

. — Die Radiarthiernatur der Seeigel. Ibid. VII.
P. 289-94.

Proc. Inst. Trinidad.

Zool.

1887.

187

180, A.C, Haddon: Preliminary Report on the Fauna of Dublin
Bay. Proc. R. Irish Acad. 2. Ser. IV. 1885. p. 523-31.

181. — & F, Jeffr. Bell: First Report on the marine Fauna
off the South West of Ireland. Echinodermata. Ibid.
p- 618-21.

182. & S.W.Green: Second Report . do. Ibid. 3. Ser.
I. 1889. p. 29-56.

183. P. Hallez: Dragages effectués dans le Pas-de-Calais. IV.

194.

195

201.

La bassure de Baas. Rey. biol. du Nord de France.
IV. 1893. p. 273-78.

. O. Hamann: Beitrige zur Histologie der Echinodermen.
Ill. Jenaische Zeitschr. f. Naturwiss. XXI. 1887. p.$7-
266, pl. 6-18.

5. W. Heape: Preliminary Report upon the Fauna and Flora
A I I

of Plymouth Sound. Journ. Mar. biol. Assoc. Un. King-
dom. II. 1888. p. 167-68.

. C. Hedley: Summary of the Fauna of Funafuti.
Austral. Mus. HI. 1899. p. 511-35.

. A. Heilprin: Contributions to the Natural History of the
Bermuda Islands. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philadelphia.
1888. Echinodermata. p. 309-18.

. — The Bermuda Islands. Philadelphia. 1889. 8°. Echinoi-
dea. p. 144-45.

. I. R. Henderson: The Echinodermata of the Firth of Clyde.
Proc. R. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh. IX. 1887. p. 328-37.

. W.A.Herdman: On the Invertebrate Fauna of Lamlash
Bay. Proc. R.Phys.Soc. Edinburgh. V. 1880. p. 193-219.

. — Additional Notes on .... do. Ibid. VI. 1881. p. 17-30.

. — Report upon the Crinoidea, Asteroidea, Echinoidea and
Holothurioidea of the L. M. B.C. District. Fauna of
Liverpool Bay. I. Proc. literary & philos. Soc. of
Liverpool. XI. 1886. p. 131-39.

. — The biological results of the Cruise of S. Y. «Argo» round
the West Coast of Ireland in August 18go.
Liverpool Biol. Soc. V. 1891. p. 181-212.

— Notes on the Collections made during the Cruise of S. Y.
«Argo» up the West Coast of Norway in July 1Sor.
Proc. Liverpool Biol. Soc. VI. 1892. p. 70-93. pl. 6-7.

. — The marine Zoology, Botany and Geology of the Irish

Sea. Fourth and final Report of the Committee. Rep.
Brit. Assoc. 1896. p 417-50.
— see Leslie.
a. E. Hesse: Die Mikrostructur der fossilen Echinoideen-
stacheln und deren systematische Bedeutung. Neues
Jahrb. f. Mineral., Geol. und Palzeontol. XIII. Beil. Bd.
1899-1901. p. 185-264. T. XII-XIII.

. C. K. Hoffmann: Echinodermies in:
Faune de Madagascar et de ses dépendances», d’aprés
les découvertes de F. P.L. Pollen & D.C v. Dam.
V. Partie. 1877. p. 45-56. PI. X.

Die Echinodermen gesammelt wihrend den Fahrten des
Willem Barents. (1878-79.) Niederl. Arch. f. Zool.
Suppl. I. 1852. 20 pp. 1 Pl.

Honeyman: Nova Scotia Echinodermata. Proc. Nova
Scotian Inst. VIL 1589. p. 253-59.

Two Cable Hauls of marine Invertebrates .... by Cable
Steamer «Minia». Ibid. p. 260-72.

Horst: Naamlijst der tot de Nederlandsche Fauna be-
hoorende Echinodermata. Tijdschr. Nederl. Dierk.
Vereenig. 2.Ser. I. 1885. p. 69-76.

W.E. Hoyle: On the deep-water Fauna of the Clyde Sea-
area. Echinodermata. Journ. Linn. Soc. London.
Zoology. XX. 1890. p. 442-72 1 pl.

24

Mem.

Proc.

Recherches sur la

sues

ECHINOIDEA. I.

. W.E. Hoyle: A revised list of British Echinoidea. Proc.

R. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh. X. 1891. p. 398-436.

203. F. W. Hutton: Catalogue of the Echinodermata of New

204.

206.

207.

n
on

216.

is}
~~

Zealand. Colonial Museum and Geological Survey
Department. Wellington. 1872.

— Notes on some New Zealand Echinodermata, with de-
scriptions of new species. Trans. & Proc. New Zealand
Inst. XI. 1880. p. 305-8.

. Hyatt: To prepare sections of spines of Echinus for micro-

slides. Journ. of Microscopy and Nat. Se. (N. Ser.)
II. 1889. p. 156.

H. v. Ihering: A Ilha de S. Sebastiio. Revista Mus. Pau-
lista. II. 1897. p. 129-70. Pl. I.

I. E. Ives: Echinoderms from the Northern Coast of
Yucatan and the Harbour of Vera Cruz. Proc. Acad.
Nat. Sc. Philadelphia. 1890. p. 317-40. pl. 8.

3. — Echinoderms and Arthropods from Japan. Ibid. 1891.

p. 210-23. pl. 7-12.

. — Echinoderms from the Bahama Islands. Ibid. p. 337-41. |

pl. 16.
-— Echinoderms and Crustaceans collected by the West-
Greenland Expedition of 1891. Ibid. p. 479-81.

. Ch. Janet: Sur pores génitaux et madréporiques multiples

dans quelques Echinoides, et sur les homologies des
plaques calycinales. Suivi d’observations de Munier-
Chalmas. Bull. Soc. Géol. de France. 3.Ser. XIX. 1891.
p- XXXVUL-XLI.

. — & L. Cuénot: Note sur les orifices génitaux multiples,

sur l’extension des pores madréporiques hors du
madréporite, et sur la terminologie de lappareil

apical chez les Oursins. Ibid. p. 295-304.

. G. John: Uber bohrende Seeigel. Arch. f. Naturgesch. 1859.

I. (55. Jahrg.) p. 268-302. pl. 15.

. W. Saville Kent: The Great Barrier Reef of Australia, its

Products and Potentialities. London. 1893. 4°. 388 pp.
64 Pl.

_C. Kerbert: Echinodermes de l’Escaut de l'Est. (Echino-

dermen van de Oosterschelde). Tijdschr. Nederl. Dierk.
Vereenig. Suppl. Deel. I. 1884. p. 558-69.

H. Gadeau de Kerville: Recherches sur les Faunes marine |
| 235. A. Lafont: Note pour servir 4 la Faune de la Gironde.

et maritime de la Normandie. 2. Voyage. Région de
Grandcamp-les-bains (Calvados) et iles Saint-Marcouf
(Manche). Bull. Soc. des Amis d. Sc. nat. Rouen. 1897.
p- 309-452. pl. 1-12.

.R. Koehler: Recherches sur les Echinides des cétes de

Provence. Annales du Mus. dhist. nat. de Marseille.
I. 1883. 167 pp. 7 pl.

218. — Contribution a l’étude de la faune littorale des iles |
Anglo-Normandes. Ann. Sc. nat. Zoologie. 6. Ser. XX.
1885. (Bull. Soc. Sc. Nancy. 2. Ser. VII. 1884.)

219. Une excursion zoologique a4 Cette. Lyon. 1894. 8 pp.
220, — Echinodermes recueillis A la Ciotat pendant l'été 1894.
Mém. Soc. Zool. de France. 1894. p. 405-26.

221. — Notes échinologiques. Revue biologique du Nord de
France. VII. 1894-95. p. 317-42. pl. 9.

222 Catalogue raisonné des Echinodermes recueillis par
M. Korotney aux iles de la Sonde. Mém. Soc. Zool.
de France. VIII. 1895. p. 374-423. pl. 9.

223. — Note préliminaire sur les Echinides recueillis pendant
les campagnes de I’«Hirondelle». Bull. Soc. Zool. de
France. XX. 1895. p. 223-27.

224. — Note préliminaire sur les Echinides des prémiéres cam- |

yagnes de la «Princesse Alice». Ibid. p. 227-33.
g I ioe

225. R. Koehler: Dragages profonds executés 4 bord du «Cau-
dan» dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Aoitit-Septembre 1895.
Rapport préliminaire surles Echinodermes. Rey. biol.
du Nord de France. VII. 1895. p. 439-96.

— Résultats scientifiques de la campagne du «Caudan»
dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Echinodermes. Ann. de
l'Université de Lyon. XXVI. 1896. p. 33-127. pl. 1-4.

Résultats scientifiques de la campagne du «Caudan».
Liste par nature de dragage des animaux. Ibid.
p- 711-40.

Sperosoma Grimaldii Koehler. Nouveau genre d’Echi-
nothurides. Zool. Anzeiger. 1897. p. 302-7.

Echinides et Ophiures provenant des campagnes du
yacht I’« Hirondelle» (Golfe de Gascogne, Agores, Terre-
Neuve). Résultats des campagnes scientifiques accom-
plies sur son yacht par Albert Ier. Prince de Monaco.
Fasc. XII. 1898.

Sur la présence en Méditerranée de l’Asterias rubens
Linné et de !Echinocardium pennatifidum Norman.
Zool. Anzeiger. XXI. 1898. p. 471-74.

Sur les Echinocardium de la Méditerranée, et princi-
palement sur les Ech. flavescens et mediterraneum.
Revue Suisse de Zoologie. VI. 1899. p. 173-87. pl. 4.

Note préliminaire sur les Echinides et les Ophiures de
Y Expedition antarctique Belge. (1.) Bull. de Acad.
roy. de Belgique (Classe d.sc.). Igo00. p. 814-20.

Les Echinides et les Ophiures de!’ Expédition antarctique
Belge. Comptes Rendus de l’Acad. d. Se. 1900.

Résultats du Voyage du S. Y. «Belgica» en 1897-99.
Zoologie. Echinides et Ophiures. Anvers. Igor. 42 pp.
8 pl.

Note préliminaire sur les Echinides, Ophiures et Crinoi-
des recueillis en 1898 et 1899 par la «Princesse Alice»
dans les regions arctiques. Bull. Soc. Zool. de France.
1gOI. p. 98-103.

Koren see Danielssen.
234. W.Kiikenthal: Ergebnisse einer zoologischen Forschungs-
reise in den Molukken und Borneo. I. Reisebericht.
Abh. Senckenb. Gesellsch. XXII. 1896. 321 pp.
63 pl.

226.

228.

229.

230.

233b.—

Act. Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, XXVIII. 1872. Echino-
dermes. p. 278-79.

236. F. Lahille: Variabilité et affinités du Monophora Darwini.
Revista del Museo de la Plata. VII. 1896. p. 409-44.
pl. 1-5.

| 237. I. Lambert: Note sur le genre Echinocyamus. Bull. Soc.

géol. de France. 3. Ser. XIX. 1891. p. 749-52.

238. — Etudes morphologiques sur le plastron des Spatangides.
Bul. Soc. de ’Yonne. 46. Il. 1893. p. 55-99. I Pl.

238a.— Etudes sur quelques Echinides de I'Infra-Lias.
53. Il. 1900. p. 3—57- pl. I.

239. Leslie & Herdman: Echinodermata of Firth of Forth.
Proc. R. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh. VI. 1881. p. 86-95.

Ibid.

240. G.M.R. Levinsen: Kara-Havets Echinodermata. «Dijmph-
na»-Togtets zoologisk-botaniske Udbytte. Koben-

hayn. 1886. p. 383-418. 2 Pl.

241. Lockington: List of Echinide now in the collection of
the Californian Academy of Natural Sciences. Proc,
Californ. Acad. Se. VI. 1875. p. 152-59.

242. E. Lénnberg: Undersékningar rérande Oresunds Djurlif.
Medd. fran Kgl. Jandtbruksstyrelsen. 1898. No. 1
(No. 43).

254.
255.

256.

257-

258.

259.

260.

261.

262.

263.

264.

265.

- On Pourtalesia, a genus of Echinoids.

. Ludwig: Uber bewegliche Schalenplatten bei Echinoi-

ECHINOIDEA.

. de Loriol: Description de trois espéces ad’ Echinides |

appartenant 4 la Famille des Cidaridées. Mém. Soc.
Se. nat. Neuchatel. V. 1873. p. 21-36. Pl. 3-5.

Note sur quelques espéces nouvelles appartenant a la
classe des Echinodermes. Mem. Soc. de Phys. et
@hist. nat. Généve. XXIV. 1876. p. 1-17. pl. 1-2.

Catalogue raisonné des Echinodermes recueillis par
M. V. de Robillard 4 Vile Maurice. Ibid. XXVIII.
1883. 64 pp. 6 pl.

Echinodermes de la Baie d’Amboine. Voyage de MM.
M. Bedot et C. Pictet dans lArchipel Malais. Revue
Suisse de Zoologie. I. 1893. p. 359-426. Pl. 13-15.

Supplément aux Echinodermes de la Baie d’Amboine. |
Ibid. Ill. 1895. p. 365-66. pl. 10-11. |

Notes pour servir a l'étude des Echinodermes. Fase. 1X. |

Geneve. Igol.

Lovén: Om Echinoideernes byggnad. Ofvers. kgl.
Vetensk. Akad: Férhandl. 1871. p. 1—47. pl. 19.

Etudes sur les Echinoidées. Kgl. Svenska Vetensk.
Akad. Handl. XI. 1875. 91 pp. 53 pl.

g Ibid. XIX. 1884.

95 pp- 21 pl.
On the species of Echinoidea described by Linnzeus

in his Work Museum Ludovic Ulric. Bihang kgl.
Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl. XIII. 1887. Afd. IV.
No. 5. 185 pp. 9 pl.
On a recent form of Echinoconide. Ibid. XIII. 1887.
Afd. IV. No. 10. 25 pp. 2. pl. |
Echinologica. Ibid. XVIII. 1892. Afd.1V. No.1. 74 pp. 12 pl.

deen. Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool. XXX. 1877. (Morpholo-
gische Studien an Echinodermen. I. 3. p. 131-40. 1 pl).

Die Echinodermen des Mittelmeeres. Prodromus einer
monographischen Bearbeitung derselben. Mitth. a. |
d. Zool. Stat. Neapel. I. 1879. p. 523-80.

Uber Asthenosoma varium Grube, und iiber ein neues
Organ bei den Cidariden. Z. f. wiss. Zool. 34. 1880.
p. 70-86. pl. 2-3. (Morphol. Studien an Echinodermen.
II. 2. p. 17-33).

Echinodermata in: R. Kossmann’s: Zoologische Ergeb-
nisse einer im Auftrage d. kgl. Akad. d. Wissensch.
zu Berlin ausgefiihrten Reise in die Kiistengebiete
des Rothen Meeres. 1880. 7 pp.

Verzeichniss der von Prof. E. van Beneden an der Kiiste
von Brasilien gesammelten Echinodermen. Mém.
couronnés des savants étrangers, publ. par !’Acad.
R. d. Se. de Belgique. 44. 1852. 26 pp.

Die Echinodermen des Beringsmeeres. Zool. Jahrb. I.
1886, p. 275-96. pl. 6.

Uber den angeblichen neuen Parasiten der Firoliden,
Trichzlina paradoxa Barrois. Zool. Anzeiger. X. 1887. |
p- 296-98. (Jf. Barrois 28.) |

Echinodermen des Sansibargebietes.
Nat. Gesellsch. XXI. 1899. p. 535-63.

Abh. Senckenb.

. W. Mackintosh: On a malformed corona of Echinus

esculentus. Proc. R.Irish Acad. 2. Ser. I]. 1875. p. 206-8.
pl. 21-22.

Researches on the structure of the spines of the Dia-
dematidz. Transact. R. Irish Acad. XXV. 1875. p.519 |
-58. pl. XXXI*-X XXIII.

Report on the Acanthology of the Desmosticha Haeckel.
I. Ibid. XXVI. 1878. p. 475-90. pl. g-11, II-III. Ibid. |
XXVIII. 1883. p. 241-66. pl. 5-10.

I. 189

266. R. T. Maitland: Prodrome de la Faune des Pays Bas et

de la Belgique Flamande, ou énumération systéma-
tique de tous les animaux y observés depuis 1679

-1897, excepté les Araignées et les Insectes. Lejde.
1897. 8°. 62 pp.

267. P. Marchisio: Echinodermi del Golfo di Rapallo. Boll.
Mus. Torino, XI. 1896. No. 227.

268. E.v. Marenzeller: Die Coelenteraten, Echinodermen und
Wiirmer der k. k. ésterreichisch-ungarischen Nordpol-
Expedition. Denkschr. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss. Wien.
XXXV. 1877. p. 357-98. pl. 1-4.

269. — Zoologische Ergebnisse. I. Echinodermen, gesammelt
1890, 1891 und 1892. Berichte d. Comm. f. Erforschung
des Gstlichen Mittelmeeres. V. Denkschr. d. k. Akad.
d. Wiss. Wien (math.-naturw. Classe). LX. 1894. p. 1
-24. pl. 1-4.

270. — Zoologische Ergebnisse. V. Echinodermen, gesammelt
1893 u. 1894. Berichte d. Commission f. Tiefsee-
forschung. XVI. Ibid. LXII. 1895. p. 123-48. 1 Pl.

271. E.v. Martens: Echinodermen aus Neu Guinea. Sitz.ber.
d. Gesellsch. Naturf. Freunde Berlin. 1889. p. 183-85.

272. A. F. Marion: Dragages au large de Marseille. Ann. d.
Se. nat. Zoologie. 6. Ser. VIII 1879. 18 pp. 4 Pl.

273. — Notes sur la Faune des Dardanelles et du Bosphore. Bull.
Mus. Marseille. (2.) I. Fasc. I. 1898. p. 163-82.

274. — Esquisse dune Topographie zoologique du Golfe de
Marseille. Ann. Mus. d’hist. nat. Marseille. I. 1883. 1.

275. — Considérations sur les faunes profondes de la Médi-
terranée. Ibid. I. 1883. 1.

276. G. Mazzetti: Echini del Mar Rosso dragati nella campagna
idrografica della R. nave «Scilla» nel 18g1-92. Atti
d. Soc. dei Naturalisti di Modena. 3. Ser. XII. 1893.
p- 100.

277. — Catalogo degli Echini del Mar Rosso e descrizione di
sp. n. Ibid. p. 238-43.

278. — Gli Echinidi del Mar Rosso. Mem. della Regia Acad.
di Scienze di Modena. 2. Ser. X. 1894. p. 211-28.

279. F. Mc. Coy: Prodromus of the Zoology of Victoria. IL
1885. Decade X. p. 33-35. Pl. 100.

280. W.C. Mc. Intosh: On the Invertebrate marine Fauna and
Fishes of St. Andrews. Echinodermata. Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist. 4. Ser. XIV. 1874. p. 68-75.

281. — The coloration of marine animals. Ibid. 7. Ser. VII.
IQOI. p. 221-40.

282. M. Meissner: Uber die yon Herrn Marine-Stabarzt Dr.
Sander heimgebrachten Seeigel. Sitz.ber. d. Ges.
Naturf. Freunde Berlin. 1892. p. 183-85.

283. — Uber Parasalenia gratiosa A. Ag. von Madagascar. Ibid.
p- 185-86.

284. — Die von Dr. Plate aus Chile heimgebrachten See-Igel.
Arch, f. Naturgesch. 62. I. 1896. p. 83-90.

285. — Echinoiden der Hamburger Magelhaensische Sammel-
reise. Hamburg. 1goo. 18 pp.

286. — & A.Collin: Beitrage zur Fauna der siidéstlichen und
6stlichen Nordsee. II. Echinodermen. Wiss. Meeres-
unters., herausg. vy. d. Biol. Stat. Helgoland. Neue
Folge. I. 1894. p. 329-45.

287. K. Mébius: Die wirbellosen Thiere der Ostsee. Bericht

iiber die Expedition zur physikalisch-chemischen u.
biologischen Untersuchung der Ostsee im Sommer
1871 auf S. M. Avisodampfer «Pommerania». Jahres-
ber. d. Commission z. wiss. Unters. d. deutschen Meere
in Kiel. I. 1873. p.97-144. Echinodermen. p. 103.

ECHINOIDEA. I.

288. K. Mébius: Die auf der Fahrt nach Arendal gefangenen
Echinodermen. Ibid. I. p. 147-54.

288a.— Mollusken, Wiirmer, Echinodermen und Coelenteraten.

Die zweite deutsche Nordpolfahrt in den Jahren 1869
und 1870. Bd. Il. 1874. p. 258-260.

— Beitrige zur Meeresfauna der Insel Mauritius und der
Seychellen. Berlin. 1880. 4°. Echinodermen. p. 46-50.

— Uber die Thiere der schleswig-holsteinischen Austern-
banke, ihre physikalischen und biologischen Lebens-
verhaltnisse. Sitz.ber. d. k. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss.
Berlin. 1893. I. p. 67-92.

— & O. Biitschli: Zoologische Ergebnisse der Nordsee-
fahrt. IV. Echinodermata. Jahresber. d. Comm. z. wiss.
Unters. d. deutschen Meere in Kiel. Il. 1875. p. 143-52.

R. Arango y Molina: Radiados de la Isla de Cuba.
(Equinodermos.) Ann. Acad. Habana. XIV. 1878.
p- 312-18.

3. Th. Mortensen: Smaa faunistiske og biologiske Med-
delelser. Vidensk. Medd. Naturh. Foren. Kobenhayn.
1897- p- 311-31,

A. Morton: Notes on a recent dredging trip in the Der-
went. Papers & Proc. & Reports of the R. Soc. of
Tasmania. 1890. p. 185-87.

John Murdoch: Marine Invertebrates, in: Report of the
international Polar Expedition to Point Barrow,
Alaska. Washington. 1885. Echinodermata. p. 156-62.

. J. Murray: On the deep and shallow water marine Fauna

of the Kerguelen Region of the great Southern Ocean.

289.

290.

291.

292.

294.

295.

Transact. R. Soc. Edinburgh. XXXVIIIL 1897. p. 343 |

-500.

. H.F. Nachtrieb: Preliminary notes on the Echinoderms of
Beaufort. Johns Hopkins Univ. Cire. 4. 1885. p. 67-68.
(Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser. XV. -p. 421-25.)

. — Notes on Echinoderms obtained at Beaufort. Stud.
from the Biol. Laborat. of the Johns Hopkins Univ.
IV. 1887. p. 81-82.

. M. Neumayr: Uber Paleechinus, Typhlechinus und die
Echinothuriden. Neues Jahrb. f. Mineral., Geol. u.
Palzontol. 180. I. p. 84-87.

bratfauna. Bergens Mus. Aarbog. 1892. No. 2. If pp.
mata, Actinozoa, Foraminifera, Polycystina and Spon-
gida of the «Valorous» Cruise. Proc. Royal Soc.
London. XXV. 1876. p. 202-15.

— Notes on the French exploring voyage of «Le Travailleur»
in the Bay of Biscay. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5.Ser. VI.
1880. p. 430-36.

— The Abysses of the Ocean; with Appendix A.-C. (A. The

first dredging in the great Abyss. B. The fauna of

the Great Abysses of all Oceans. C. The Fauna as
far as yet known, which lives in the North Atlantic

Ocean at greater depths than one Thousand fathoms).

Nat. Hist. Transact. Northumberland, Durham and

Newcastle-on-Tyne. VIII. 1884-89. p. 91-134.

month on the Trondhjem Fjord. I. Ann. Mag. Nat.

Hist. 6. Ser. XII. 1893. p. 341-67.

H. L. Osborn: in the number of
Ambulacral systems in Arbacia punctulata, Americ.
Naturalist. XXXII. 1898. p. 259-61.

*306.— Variations in the apical plates of Arbacia punctulata

from Woods Holl Mass. Science. N. Ser. XIII. 1901.
p- 938-40. 20 fig.

302.

oa
[o}
ios)

304. — A

305. A case of variation

| 318.

| 319.

. O. Nordgaard: Enkelte Trak af Beitstadfjordens Everte- |

| 307. A. Ostroumow: Comptes rendus des dragages et du Plank-

ton de expedition de «Selanik». Bull. de I’Acad. d.

sc. de St. Pétersbourg. 5. Sér. V. 1896. p. 33-92. (Rus-

sisk.)

| *308. A. S. Packard: The Labrador Coast. New York & London.
1891. (List of Echinoderms. p. 370-71.)

| 309. P. Pallary: Enumération des Oursins vivants dans le golfe

d’Oran. Feuille d. jeunes Naturalistes. 3. Sér. 28. 1898.
Pp. 151-53-
310. — Les coquilles marines du littoral oranais. Journal de
Conchyliologie. 1900. No. 3.
E. Parfitt: The Fauna of Devon. VIII. Echinodermata.
Rep. & Transact. Devonshire Assoc. V. 1872. p. 352-70.
C. G. Joh. Petersen: Det videnskabelige Udbytte af Kanon-
baaden «Hauch»s Togter i de danske Farvande inden-
for Skagen i Aarene 1883-86. Kobenhayn. 1893. Echi-
nodermata. p. 35-52.
G. Pfeffer: Die Clypeastriden des Hamburger Museums.
Verhandl, d. naturwiss. Vereins Hamburg-Altona. (2).
| 5. Jahrg. r88r.

314. — Zoologische Kleinigkeiten. VII. Uber die Rechtschrei-
bung des Wortes «Echinoderma». VIII. Uber Ab-
weichung yon der Fiinfzahl bei Echinodermen.

IX. Uber Parasalenia gratiosa (A. Ag.) und P. Pohlii
n.sp. Verhandl. d. Vereins f. naturwiss. Unterhaltung
Hamburg. VI. 1887. p. 107-13.

Mollusken, Krebse und Echinodermen yon Cumberland-
Sund. Jahrb. d. Hamburgischen wissensch. Anstalten.
Ill. 1887. p. 49.

Zur Fauna von Siid-Georgien.
Pp: 49:-)

Die Fauna der Insel Jeretik, Port Wladimir, an der
Murman-Kiiste, nach den Sammlungen des Herrn
Kapitain Horn. Ibid. VIL 1889. p. 63-96.

Fische, Mollusken und Echinodermen von Spitzbergen,
gesammelt von Herrn Prof. W. Kiikenthal im Jahre
1886. Ibid. VIII. p. 91-99.

Echinodermen yon Ost-Spitzbergen, nach der Ausbeute
der Herren Prof. W. Kiikenthal und Dr. A. Walter
im Jahre 1889. Zool. Jahrbiicher. Abth. f. Syst. VIII.
1895. p. 100-127.

Bi.

302:

313-

Ibid. VI. 1889. (Echini.

. A.M. Norman: Crustacea, Tunicata, Polyzoa, Echinoder- |

uw
rs
i)

Niedere Thierwelt des antarktischen Ufergebietes. 1Sgo.
Ergebnisse der deutschen Polar-Expedition. All-
gemeiner Theil. Bd. II. 17. 120 pp.

. — Ostafrikanische Echiniden, Asteriden und Ophiuriden,
gesammelt von Herrn Dr. F. Stuhlmann im Jahre
1888 und 1889. Mitth. Mus. Hamburg. XIII. 1896.
p- 43-48.

Echinodermen yonTernate. Echiniden, Asteriden, Ophiu-
riden und Comatuliden, (Kiikenthal: Zoologische
Forschungsreise. III. 1.) Abh. d. Senckenb. Naturf.
Gesellsch. XXV. 1900. p. 83-85.

A. Philippi: Uber die chilenischen Seeigel. Verhandl.
d. deutschen wissensch. Vereins zu Santiago in Chile.
Il. 1892. p. 246-47.

A. Pomel: Paléontologie del’ Algérie. Echinodermes. 1. Liv-
raison: Classification méthodique et Genera des Echi-
nides vivants et fossiles. Algier. 1883. 4°. 120 pp. I Pl.
(II. Livr. 1887; Descriptions of fossil species.)

— Notes d’Echinologie synonymique. Bull. Soc. géol. de
France. 3. Sér. XVI. 1888. p. 441-53.

Edith M. Pratt: Contribution to our knowledge of the

marine Fauna of the Falkland Islands. Mem. Man-

322.

323:

324.

325.

| 326.

ECHINOIDEA. I.

chester literary & philos. Soc. 42. 1898. No. 13. p. 1-26. |

pl. V.

. H. Prouho: Recherches sur le Dorocidaris papillata et
quelques autres Echinides de la Méditerranée. Arch.
d. Zool. expér. et génér. 2.Sér. V. 1887. p. 213-380.
pl. 14-26.

. — Du réle des Pédicellaires gemmiformes chez les Oursins.
Comptes Rendus de l’Acad. d.sc. CXI. 18go. p. 62-64.

. G. Pruvot: Coup d’ceil sur la distribution générale des
invertébrés dans la région de Banyuls (Golfe du Lyon).
Arch. Zool. expér. & génér. 3. Sér. IIT. 1895. p. 629-58.
pl. 30.

. — Essai sur les fonds et la faune dela Manche occidentale
(cdtes de Brétagne), comparés a ceux du Golfe du Lion
(avec catalogue des Invertébrés benthiques du Golfe
du Lion et dela Manche occidentale avec leur habitat.
Ibid. 3. Sér. V. 1897. p. 511-660. pl. 21-26.

. E. P. Ramsay: Catalogue of the Echinodermata in the

Australian Museum. Part I. Echini. Sydney. 1885. |

54pp. 3 Pl. Ul. Ed. 1891. 60 pp. 4 Pl.

— Specimens obtained in a dredging trip in Port Jackson.
1890. Records of the Australian Mus. IV. 18go.
p- 84-88.

332a. W.M. Rankin: Echinoderms collected off the West Coast

332.

of Greenland by the Princeton Arctic Expedition of |

1899. Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. rgo0r. p. 169-81.

Blt
Amer. Journ. of Arts & Se. 3. Ser. XV. 1878. p. 82-84.

A List of the Brazilian Echinoderms with notes on
their distribution. Transact. Connecticut Acad. of Sc.
V. 1879. p. 139-58.

Report upon the Echini collected by the U. S. Fish Com-
mission Steamer «Albatross» in the Carribean Sea and
Gulf of Mexico. Jan.-May. 1884. Proc. U. S. National
Museum. VIII. 1885. p. 83-89.

mission Steamer «Albatross» in the Gulf of Mexico
from Jan.-March 1885. Ibid. p. 606-20.
Catalogue of the collection of recent Echini in the United
States National Museum. Ibid. LX. 1886. p. 255-93.
. H. Rauff: On Pourtalesia, a genus of Echinoidea by Sven
Loven. Sitz.ber. d.naturhist. Vereins d. preuss. Rhein.
u. Westphalen. 42. 1885. p. 93-118.
339. I. Rein: Japan, nach Reisen und Studien dargestellt. 1881.
J. p. 238-40. Echinodermen.

Journ. Linn. Soc. Zoology. XX. 18go. P- 473-570.
pl. 30. List of Echinodermis (determ. by I. Jeffr. Bell).
Pp. 559-60.

. D. Robertson: Amphidotus cordatus. Transact. Nat. Hist.
Soc. Glasgow. N. Ser. I. 1887. p. 290-93.

342. — Jottings from my Notebook. On Amphidotus cordatus
Penn. Ibid. N. Ser. IV. 1897. p. 333-34.
343. A.de Rochebrune: Materiaux pour la Faune de I’Archi-

pel du Cap Vert. Nouy. Arch. d. Musée d’hist. nat.
Paris. 2. Sér. IV. 1881. Echinodermata. p. 321-29.

A. Rodger: Preliminary account of natural history col-
lections made on a voyage to the Gulf of St. Law-
rence and Davis Straits. Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh.
XX. 1894. p. 154-63.

344.

Rathbun: Additions to the Echinoid Fauna of Brazil. |

Report upon the Echini collected by the U. S. Fish Com- |

. H, N. Ridley: Notes on the Zoology of Fernando Noronha. |

345. I. Romanes & I. C. Ewart: Observations on the Loco- |

motor System of Echinodermata. Phil. Transact. 1
1881. p. 829-85. pl. 79-85.

72.

191

346. A. Rothpletz: Uber die Diadematiden-Stachel und Haplo-
porella fasciculata aus dem Oligociin yon Astrupp.
Neues Jahrb. f. Mineral., Geol. u. Palceontol.
p. 285-90.

347. A. Russo: Specie di Echinodermi poco conosciuti e nuoyi
viventi nel Golfo di Napoli. Atti d. R. Acad. di Se.
fis. e matem. di Napoli. VI. 1894. 1. gpp. 1 Pl.

Echinodermi raccolti nel Mar Rosso degli Ufficiale della
R. marina italiana. Boll. Soc. Nat. Napoli. VII. 1893.
p- 159-63.

F. & P.B. Sarasin: Uber einen mit zusammengesetzten
Augen bedeckten Seeigel. Zool. Anzeiger. VIII. 188s.
p- 715-20.

— Uber einen Lederigel aus dem Hafen von Trincomalie
(Ceylon) und seinem Giftapparat. Ibid. IX. 1886.
p. 80-82.

1891. I.

348.

349. C.

350.

351. — — Die Augen und das Integument der Diadematiden.
Ergebnisse naturwiss. Forschungen aus Ceylon. I.
1887. p. I-17. Pl. 1-3.

Uber die Anatomie der Echinothuriden und die Phy-
logenie der Echinodermen. Ibid. I. p. 81-154. pl. X
-XVII. (Neues Jahrb. f. Mineral., Geol. u. Palazeont.
1889. I. p. 54-59.)

H. E. Sauvage: Contribution a la connaissance de la Faune
du Pas-de-Calais et des parties voisines de la mer du
Nord et de la Manche. Bull. Scientif. de France et
de la Belgique. 22. 1890. p. 243-48.

. F.E. Schulze: Priparate von Echinodermskeletten. Sitz.-

ber. Gesellsch. naturf. Freunde Berlin. 1887. p. 30-31.

. Th. Scott: Notes on some Scottish Echinodermata. Ann.

Scott. Nat. Hist. 1892. p. 49-51. pl. II.

352.

353:

356. — Notes on a collection of Echinoderms and Molluscan
Shells from the Moray Firth district. Proc. R. Phys.
Soc. Edinburgh. XI. 1891. p. 81-84.

357- — Report on a collection of marine dredgings and other
natural history materials made on the West Coast of
Scotland by the late George Brook. Ibid. XIII. 1896.
p- 166-93. 1 Pl.

358. — The marine Fishes and Invertebrates of Loch Fyne.
Rep. Fishery Board Scotland. 15. Ill. 1897. p. 107-74.
pl. 1-3.

359. W. Sharp: The Sea-Urchin. Rep. Guernsey Soc. 18go.
p. 61-64.

360. G. Sim: Preliminary Reports on the natural history of the
district of the Union (E. Scotland Societies). VII.
Crustacea and Echinodermata. Proc. East Scotl. Union
of Naturalists Soc. 1884. p. 42-45.

361. — Echinus acutus Lamk. on the East Coast of Scotland.
Ann. Scott. Nat. Hist. 1895. p. 255.
362. — Echinus acutus Lamk. off the Aberdeenshire Coast.

Ibid. 1896. p. 62.

363. I. Simpson: Echinus norvegicus in Scottish Seas. Science
Gossip. (N. S.) II. 1896. p. 305.

364. H. Simroth: Zur Kenntniss der Azorenfauna.
dermata. Arch. f. Naturgesch. 1888. I. p. 231-34.

365. W.P.Sladen: On the Asteroidea and Echinoidea of the

Journ. Linn. Soc. London. Zoology.

Echino-

Korean Seas.
XIV. 1879. p. 424-45. pl. 8.

366. — On a remarkable form of Pedicellaria and the functions
performed thereby; together with general observa-
tions on the allied forms of this organ in the Echi-

Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. VI. p. 101-13.

pl. 12-13.

nide. Ser.

192

ECHINOIDEA. I.

367. W.P.Sladen: Report on a collection of Echinodermata
from the S. W. Coast of Ireland, dredged in 1888
by a Committee, appointed by the Royal Irish Aca-

|

demy. Proc. R. Irish Acad. 3.Ser. I. 1891. p.687-704.

pl. 25-29.

Report on the Echinodermata, in: Notes on Rockall Is-
land and Bank. Transact. R. Irish Acad. of Sc. XXXI.
1897. p. 78.

see Duncan.

. C.

k6niglichen naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Nieder-
landisch Indien in Batavia. Die Echinodermen. II.

Ph. Sluiter: Die Evertebraten aus der Sammlung des |

Echinoidea. Naturkundig Tijdschr. vor Nederl. Indie |

(Batavia). 48. 1889. p. 285-96.

Nachtragliches iiber die Echinodermen-Fauna des Java-
Meeres. Ibid. 49. 1890. p. 105-10. 1 PI.

Die Echiniden-Sammlung des Museums zu Amsterdam.
Bijdr. tot de Dierk. 17. 1895. p. 65-74.

A. Smith: Description of a new species of Spatangide.
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser. I. p. 67-70.

An account of the Petrological, Botanical and Zoological
Collections made in Kerguelen’s Land and Rodriguez
during the Transit of Venus-Expeditions in the years
1874-75. Echinodermata (from Kerguelen Island).
Philos. Transact. 168. 1879. p. 270-81. pl. 16-17.

Do. Echinodermata (from Rodriguez). Ibid. p. 564-68.
pl. 51. Fig. 1-3.

375. W. A. Smith: The West Coast Fauna of the «Garland»

Expedition. Rep. Fishery Board Scotland. IX. m1.

1891. p. 297-99.

. E.

376. — The West Coast Expedition of the «Garland» during
July and August 1892. Ibid. XI. 1m. 1893. p. 167-71.
377. A. Sommerville: Dredging off Portincross, Ayrshire. Proc.

Nat. Hist. Soc. Glasgow. N. Ser. II. 18go0. p. 189-93.

. C. Stewart: Note on the calcareous parts of the sucking
feet of an Echinus (Podophora atrata). Monthly Mi-
crosc. Journ. London. IX. 1873. p. 55-56. Pl. 7.

379. On certain Organs of the Cidaride. Transact. Linn.
Soc. 2. Ser. I. 1879. p. 569-72. pl. 70.

380. — Note on an abnormal Amblypneustes griseus. Journ.
Linn. Soc. London. Zoology. XV. 1881. p. 130.
pl. 5. 4-6.

381. — On some structural features of Echinostrephus molaris,
Parasalenia gratiosa and Stomopneustes variolaris.
Journ. R. micros. Soc. III. 1880. p. 909-12. pl. 20.

382. M. Stossich: Breve sunto sulle produzzioni marine del

Golfo di Trieste. Boll. dell. Soc. Adriatica di Se. nat.
(Triest). 1876.

383. — Prospetto della fauna del mare Adriatico. Part V.
Echinodermata. Ibid. VIL. 1884. p. go—110.
384. Th. Studer: Uber Echinodermen aus dem antarktischen

Meere und zwei neue Seeigel von den Papua-Inseln,
gesammelt auf der Reise S. M. S. «Gazelle» um die
Erde. Monatsber. d. Berliner Akad. 1876. p. 452-65.

385. — Uber Geschlechtsdimorphismus bei Echinodermen. Zool.
Anzeiger. 1880. No. 67 & 68.
386. — Ubersicht iiber die wihrend der Reise S$. M. Corvette
Gazelle» um die Erde 1874-76 gesammelten Echi-
noiden. Monatsber. d. Akad. Berlin. 1880. p. 861-85.
2 pl.
387. — Die Forschungsreise S. M. S. «Gazelle» in den Jahren

1574-76. III. Zoologie und Geologie. Berlin. 1889. 4°.
p- 1-322. 33 pl.

| 395:

| 396.

| SEEDS

| 400.

| 402.

| 403.

388. A. Stuxberg: Echinodermer fran Novaja Zemljas Hat
samlade under Nordenskjéldska Expeditionerna, 1875
-76. Ofvers. kgl. Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Férhandl.
1878. IL. p. 27-40. pl. 6.

. — Evertebratfaunan i Sibiriens Ishaf. Vega-Expeditionens
vetenskapliga lakttagelser. I. 1882. p. 677-812.

. I, C, Sumner: On the Echinodermfauna of Plymouth.
Rep. British Assoc. 1895. p. 471-72.

. R. Tate: List of Recent Echini of South Australia. Trans.
R. Soc. S. Australia. V. 1882. p. 74-75.

. W. d’Arcy Thompson: On a supposed resemblance be-
tween the marine faunas of the arctic and antarctic
Regions. Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh. 22. 189g. p. 311-49.

. Wyville Thomson: Notice of a new Family of the Echi-
nodermata. Ibid. 1871-72. p. 615-17.

On the Echinoidea of the «Porcupine
ging Expeditions. Ibid. VIII. 1873
Mag. Nat. Hist. 4. Ser. X. p. 300-6.)

On the Echinoidea of the «Porcupine» Deep-sea Dred-
ging-Expeditions. Philos. Transact. 164. 1875. p. 719
-56. pl. 59-71.

Voyage of the «Challenger». The Atlantic. A preli-
minary account of the general results of the explo-
ring voyage of H. M.S. «Challenger» during the year
1873 and the early part of the year 1876. I-I]. 1877.

Notice of some peculiarities in the mode of propagation
of certain Echinoderms of the Southern Sea. Journ.
Linn. Soc. London. Zoology. XIII. 1878. p. 55-79.

Thurston: Preliminary Report on the marine Fauna
of Ramésvaram and the neighbouring Islands. Go-
vernment Central Museum. Madras. Science. Ser. I.
1887. 41 pp. 6 pl. 8°.

Notes on the Pearl and Chank Fisheries and Marine
Fauna of the Gulf of Manaar. Government Central
Mus. Madras. r18go.

Rameésvaram Island and Fauna of the Gulf of Manaar.
Madras. Government Museum. Bull. No. 3. 1895.
W.L. Tower: An abnormal Clypeastrid Echinoid. Zool.

Anzeiger. 1go1. No. 640. p. 188-91.

G. F. Tregelles: Notes on the Echinodermata of Mounts
Bay. Transact. Penzanze Nat. Hist. Soc. N. Ser. IV.
1884-88. p. 368-76.

F. H. Troschel: Die Familie der Echinocidariden. I. Archiv
f. Naturgesch. 1872. p. 293-356. IL. Ibid. 1873. p. 308-56.

— Rhabdocidaris recens sp.n. Archiv f. Naturgesch. 43.
1877. p. 127-34. pl. 8. Nachtragliche Bemerkung iiber
Rh. recens. Ibid. p. 260.

. — Uber Rhabdocidaris recens. Sitz.ber. d. Niederrhein.

Gesellsch. (Phys. Sect.). 1577.

. Iv. Uexkiill: Die Physiologie der Pedicellarien. Zeitsch.
f. Biologie. 37. 1899. p. 334-403. 2 pl.

. — Die Physiologie des Seeigelstachels.
Pp: 73-112.

3. W.S. M. d’Urban: The Zoology of Barents’ Sea.
Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser. 6. 1880. p. 253-77-

40g. E, Vanhéffen: Die Fauna und Flora Grénlands, in: Grén-

land-Expedition der Gesellschaft fiir Erdkunde zu

Berlin r8g1-93, unter Leitung von E. yv. Drygalski.

Il. 1. 1897. Echinodermen. p. 234-43.

Verrill: Contributions to Zoology from the Museum

of Yale College. XXII. On the radiata from the Coast

of North Carolina. Americ. Journ. Se. & Arts. 3. Ser.

Ill. 1872. p. 436-38.

Deep-sea Dred-
- p- 491-97. (Ann.

we

No}

~s
|

. E.

4ol.

404.

Ibid.

39. 1900.

Ann.

. EB. A.

411.
412.
413.
414.
415.
416.
417.
418.
419.
420.

42t.

422.

423.

424.

425.

426.

427.

2

428.

429.

430. J. Walther: Die Lebeusweise der Meeresthiere.

431.

ECHINOIDEA. I.

193

E. A. Verrill: Contributions etc. XXIII. Results of recent | 432. I. F. Whiteaves: On recent deep-sea dredging expeditions

Dredging Expeditions on the Coast of New-England.
Ibid. 3. Ser. V. 1873. p. 1-16.

Contributions. XXIV. Do. Continuation. Ibid. p. 98-106.

Contributions. XXVI. Do. Continuation. Ibid. 3. Ser.
VIL. 1874. p. 38.

Contributions. XXVIII. Do. Continuation. Ibid. p. 131.

Contributions. XXVIII. Do. Continuation. Ibid. p. 405.

Contributions. XXIX. Do. Continuation. Ibid. p. 498.

Contributions. XLVI. Notice of the remarkable marine
Fauna occupying the outer banks off the Southern
Coast of New England. Ibid. 3. Ser. XX. 1880. p. 390-403.

Contributions. XLIX. Do. Continuation. Ibid. XXIII.
1882. p. 135-

Contributions. L. Continuation. Ibid. p. 216.

Contributions. LI. Continuation. Ibid. XXIV. 1882. p. 360.

Contributions. LVI. Continuation. Ibid. XXVIII. 1884.
p- 378—84.

On the marine Fauna of Eastport.
Ill. 1871. p. 2-6.

Explorations of Casco Bay by the U.S. Fish Commis-
sion in 1873. Proceed. Amer. Assoc. f. Ady. of Science.
XXIL 1873. p. 340-95.

Notice of some dredgings made near Salem by Dr. A. S.
Packard and C. Cooke. 6th annual Report of the Tru-
stees of the Peabody Acad. of Science. 1873. p.55-60.

Radiates, in: Contribution to the natural History of
Arctic America, made in connection with the How-
gate Polar-Expedition 1877-78, by Ludwig Kumlien.
Bull. U.S. National Museum Il. 1882.
Miscell. Collections. XXII. 1882. Art. V. p. 151.)

Results of the Explorations made by the Steamer «Al-
batross» off the northern Coast of the United States
in 1883. (Ann. Rep. of the Commissioner of Fish and
Fisheries for 1883). 1885.

Additions to the Echinoderms of the Bermudas. Trans-
act. Connect. Acad. Arts & Sc. X. Ig00. p. 583-87.

& S.I. Smith: Report upon the invertebrate animals
of Vineyard Sound and adjacent waters, with an
account of the physical features of the Region.
Washington. 1874. (Report of the Commissioner of
Fish and Fisheries, on the condition of the sea-
Fisheries of the South Coast of New England in
1871 and 1872).

A. Walter: Ceylons Echinodermen. Jenaische Zeitschr. f.

Naturwiss. XVIII. 1885. p. 365-84.

Bull. Essex Instit.

Beobach-
tungen iiber das Leben der geologisch wichtigen

(Smithson. |

Thiere. Zweiter Theil einer Einleitung in dieGeologie |

als historische Wissenschaft. Jena. 1893. Echinoidea.
p. 312-28.

I. F. Whiteaves: Notes on deep-sea dredging round the
Island of Anticosti in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Ann.
Mag. Nat. hist. 4. Ser. X. 1872. Echinoderms. p. 346.

434-

435.

439:

440.

44l.

442.

449-

4509.

. — The Echinodermata of Funafuti.

in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Amer. Journ. Sc. & Arts.
3. Ser. VII. 1874. p. 210-19.
On some marine Invertebrata dredged or otherwise col-

lected by Dr. G. M. Dawson in 1885. Proceed. Trans-
act. R. Soc. Canada. IV. 1887. p. 111-137.

— Notes on some marine Invertebrata from the Coast of
British Columbia. Ottawa Naturalist. VII. 1893. p. 133
-37- pl. I.

— Catalogue of the marine Invertebrata of Eastern Canada.
Geological Survey of Canada. Ottawa. 1go1. Echino-
dermis. p. 43-63.

. Th. Whitelegge: List of the marine and Freshwater In-

vertebrate Fauna of Port Jackson and the Neigh-
bourhood. Journ. R. Soc. N.S. Wales. XXIII. 1889.
p. 163-323.

Memoirs of the Au-
stral. Mus. Ill. 1897. p. 155-62.

. R. N. Wolfenden: Radiography in Marine Zoology. The

British Echinodermata. Suppl. to the «Arch. Roentgen
Ray». 4°. 6pp. 15 pl. 1897.

H. V. Wilson: Marine Biology at Beaufort. Americ. Natu-
ralist. XXXIV. 1g00. p. 339-60. 4 pl.

I. Wood-Mason & A. Alcock: Natural History notes
from H. M. Indian marine survey steamer «Investi-

gator». No. 21. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 6. Ser. VII. 1891.
p- I-19.

Do. Ser. II. No. 1. On the results of deep-sea dredging
during the season 1890-91. Ibid. 6. Ser. VIII. 1891.
Echinoderms. p. 427-43. pl. X VIL

I. E. Tenison Woods: The Kchini of Australia (including
those of the Chevert Expedition). Proc. Linn. Soc.

N.S. Wales. I]. 1878. p. 145-76; 342-44 (supplemental

note).

On some new Australian Echini.

-gi. pl. 13-14.

On some of the littoral marine fauna of North-East

Australia. Ibid. V. 1881. p. 106-31.

On the habits of some Australian Echini. Ibid. V. 1881.

p- 193-204.

On a young specimen of a Temnopleurus. Ibid. V. 1881.

P- 493-94-

On a new species of Stomopneustes and a new variety
Ibid. VII. 1883. p. 93-94.

Ibid. IV. 1880. p. 282

of Hipponoé variegata.

3. S. Yoshiwara: On two new species of Asthenosoma from

the Sea of Sagami. Annot. Zoologicee Japonenses. I.
1897. p. 5-11. pl. 2.

Preliminary notice of new Japanese Echinoids. Ibid. I.
1898. p. 57-61.

Hj. Ostergren: Uber die von der schwedischen zoolo-
gischen Polarexpedition 1900 eingesammelten Aste-
roidea, Echinoidea, Holothuroidea und Crinoidea.
Zool. Anzeiger. XXIV. 1gor. (No. 642.) p. 252-53.
(Naturvet. Studentsdllsk. Upsala.)

+ OE GES:

bial earl,

pe a

ees rh bay) oar ich, PL eae i‘. s.
set res - ey, eel ae .
is |
a | 7 Base, 2A
; al * ; d\ <0 ai J
eae lag iyi arte tile ia ohne
; 7 ab) AA Seat a _
; TT ae . alte rey! ae ’
b ze! J yi ——_ in
cael ‘igo id deel! Taig re ae
v : is CLA, [th ha one etal
Vi ols ee SS kd, Aan ito a mt viel rn
7 ! id bayt : iu i a” mae
j : Pee ae ft ie: “lt. J ge >it s ‘oe
. ea ; ; nl ha
: fi ! i ; i ,
“< Od et kare fa) faa = ; mer
i fadgccg ead 4 ae
D esuillin ery Pa) ~ 4 euprvetw lana tette
te ilaad ile <
; eau Tate
rq ike 43 1 ph he rie
b SP. oe eee «|e es net 1 nial
‘ant aor 7 eu gel? er meal
2 meds ne i won A
: ner Wey tot wig oa a
~ uae 2°, ; i lm Laie
¢ =| Yo shell Wan ‘heathy, FF
att i ae mien lad simon! ~~
i Uy aD an} oe ufo iy
4 A : (je. “¢ ar
ee {fn bye Gh
\ = a x ne fe 1h on
: 7 til eonuoty alle 5A) cake
, jl te Z ye te uae
8. Go ay oll -
: ' W) taahd Fas iad vial nll
i wv i ay Lee one ie?
i” ee vie =*
dé
, , i x , at
lay
ve ¥ '
reel a lw aM
/ \ 4 MePry
i ty 1 =
oe ia
im ‘nin i" * iat; = A
i 4 " (fy ieee lee 1 ; | bigtime “i i, 29 Ye alex ¥
i peratew 7 i Oia (el ed) =

hohe Jyidinr aries

he coloured figures are made from preserved specimens; nevertheless they give an excellent picture
also of the living animals, the Echinids, as is well known (at all events with regard to a great
number of species), being possessed of the excellent quality often to keep their colour completely in alcohol.
— I have had occasion myself to see a great many living Echinids, so that I may have a well-
founded opinion of this fact. — Only of Calveria hystrix I have had a coloured sketch, made from the
living animal onboard of the «Ingolf»; the preserved animal proved to have lost next to nothing of
the intensity of its colour. There is therefore good sense in making coloured figures from preserved
specimens, especially as we have most frequently to do with preserved specimens by the determina-
tions. I have accordingly thought it very important to have these figures made, and I must here
take the opportunity to thank my friend, the artist painter, Mr. Bentzen-Bilkvist, most heartily for
the excellent execution as well of the original figures as of the lithographic reproduction of these and
of all the other plates. Also the uncoloured habitus figures are drawn by Mr. Bentzen-Bilkvist;
all the detail figures are drawn by the author.
With regard to the enlargement (Obj. and Oc.) of the separate figures it must be noted that
where nothing else is stated, a Seibert’s microscope has been used; when a Zeiss’s microscope has been
used, it is specially stated.

Plate I.

Fig. 1. Cidaris affinis.
— 2-3. Echinus elegans.
_ Echinus acutus, var. norvegicus.
b) }5
— 5-6. Strongylocentrotus drobachiensts.
— 7. Echinus acutus, var. Flemingu.
— 8 Echinus acutus, var. norvegicus.

— 9. Echinus esculentus, young specimen.

Ingoll Lapeditionen LV; 7. ThA Mortensen. Lehinotdea 1 FabT.

1. Cidaris atlints Phil. 2-3. Echinius elegans DH. 4,8 Ech norvegicus DA. 3-6. Str drobachterstis (OF Mo)
7 Ech Hemingit Fork. GF ch.esculentis L.

Plate II.

Fig. 1. Echznus acutus, var. Flemingi.

— 2. — — var. norvegicus, large specimen.

— 3—5. Strongylocentrotus drabachiensts.

— 6. Echinus acutus, var. norvegicus, small specimen.

— 7. Farechinus miliaris (on the plate wrongly called «Psammechitnus»).

— 8 Echinus acutus, var. mediterranea.

4. Feehiniws Mlemingit lorb 26 Ech. norvegtcizs

7. Psarmrvech. miliarts (Mill

Plate III. ¥

Fig. 1—2. Calveria hystrix, t. abactinal side, 2. actinal side. (On the plate wrongly called « Asthenoso
— 3. Echinus esculentus. ;

== Ul, — elegans.

Ingoll Expeditioner: 1 oF

G2] NAR IS : Ri
DYNA
LAL \

= Tak Ga
eh

PNG tall <
NONE CTT
‘\! Van "y

CNN

1-2.Asthenosoma hystria (NTN) 3. Echinies

4 bch.elegans DA

Plate IV.

Fig. 1. Apical area of Phormosoma placenta, diameter 37™". 4/1.

— 2 — - - — —- _ 7s ire
— 3. Sperosoma Grimatdiz, abactinal side.
—4-5 — — young specimen; 4. abactinal side, 5. actinal side.

Ingoll Lopeditionen S17 ry 7

tS Ulin. AN dehy)

C7CoCMOicy Co Sy, ls ae,
B ps ce

2 £

1-2. Phorrtosorma Jitacenta IW Th 3-5. Suerosoma Grimaldi Moeller

ay

Plate V.

Fig. 1. AMypszechinus coronatus. */;.
— 2-3. Echinus Alexandri. *);.
—4 — — afinis. 1);

— 5-7. — Alexandri. *);.
— = affints. */s.

Ingoll Eapeditionen 1; 7

Fig. 1.

Plate VI.

Stereocidaris tngolfiana, from above. 1/1.
— — = thersides /::
Test of Stereocidaris tngolfiana. */;.
Apical area of — - 2h.
Ambulacral-processes of Steveoctdaris tngolfiana. */;.
— - Dorocedari’s papillata. +/;.
Interambulacral area - — — ars
Piece of ambuiacral area of Doroc¢dards papillata. 4/;.
aa —= - Cirdaris affinis. 4/1.
Interambulacral area of Czdari's affints. ?/1.
Piece of ambulacral area of Stereoczdar’s tngolfiana.

—= = — - Poroctdaris purpurata. +/;.

| Ingoll Expeditionen N77

Th.Morltensen. Echinoidea 1. Tab

TMortensan (Fig 4 7-f/)

£Bentzrern Fidkoist

1-3, 11 Stereactdaris wgolfiarna rn.sp. © 8 Doroctdaris papillata (Leske/

42. Poroctdarts jeurpurata WNT.

9-10 Cidares allints Phil

IT.

1—20. Hypstechtnus coronatus.

1, PhESe Gi Gy Ge.

2—4. Test of 2. 1/;.

5. Specimen with young. 3/;.

6—8. Three developmental stages, the more important skeletal parts begun. Obj. II. Oc. I.
g. Apical area of 6. 4/;.

10. Piece of the rosette. Obj. II. Oc. II.

11. Plate from the buccal membrane. Obj. II. Oc. I.

12. Spicules from the gills. Obj. Il. Oc. I.

13. Spicules from tube feet. Obj. II. Oc. I.

14. Anal plate of a young one. Obj. IL Oc. III.

15. Calcareous plates from the buccal membrane, inside of the buccal plates.

Obj Ocw,

16. Valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. Obj. II. Oc. III.

17. Spheeridia. Obj. II. Oc. II.

18. Valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. Obj. II. Oc. III.

10. — - globiferous pedicellaria, from the inside. Obj. I. Oc. II.

20. - -- = asides Objliey Ocrunr:

Ze — - tridentate pedicellaria of Prionechinus sagittiger. Obj. I. Oc. I.
22. - — - Arbacina forbestana, Obj. II. Oc. I.

23. — - triphyllous - - Trigonocidaris albida. Obj. I. Oc. II.
24. — - — — - Genoctdaris maculata. Obj. I. Oc. III.
25. . = = - Prionechinus sagittéger. Obj. II. Oc. III.
26. - — - - Arbactna forbestana, Obj. Il. Oc. II.
27. Spicules from tube foot of Zy%gonoctdaris monolint. Obj. V. Oc. 0.

28. — - —- — - — albtda. Obj. V. Oc. o.

29. Valve of globiferous pedicellaria of Prronechinus sagittiger. Obj. Il. Oc. III.
30. - ~ - - Genoctdaris maculata. Obj. I. Oc. II.
Zul — - - — - Trigonoctdar’s albida. Obj. U1. Oc. TI.
aie - -- - Arbacina forbestana. Obj. Il. Oc. II.

Plate VII.

A,
3:

Wh.Morlensen, Echtnotdea 1 Tabu.

‘902.004

905 20 9¢ a) <

20%

seca (EV
>

SAS

eee
COSHH

6-32 Th Mortensen ded, fomont H Petersens 7

1-20. Hypstechinis coronatis ng ,nmsp. 21-32. Prionechinus, lrigonocidarts, Genactdarts, Arbactna.

Plate VIII.

1. Tube foot of Dorocetdar’s paprllata, shows the arrangement of the spicules. Obj.o. Oc.o.

2. a.b. Spines of Crdarzs affinds (U.S. F.C.); a. primary actinal spine, 3/;. b. primary abactinal spine, */;. .

3. Actinal primary spine of Doroczdards papillata. */;.

4. — = - - Stereoctdaris tngolfiana. ?/;.

5. Secondary abactinal spine of Hypszechinus coronatus. Obj. I. Oc. 0.

6. Valve of a small globiferous pedicellaria of Stereoc¢dar's canaliculata, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.
7. Globiferous pedicellaria of Gexoctdaris maculata; shows the double poison gland. Obj. II. Oc. I.
8. Valve of a large globiferous pedicellaria of Stereoce¢darz's canaliculata, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.
9. Point of a primary abactinal spine of Hypszechinus coronatus. Obj. IL. Oc.o.

10. Primary abactinal spine of Stereoctdarts tngolfiana. 1);

11. Valve of a large globiferous pedicellaria of Stereoczd. zugolfana, from the side. Obj. I. Oc. L
12. Spine from the peristome of Dorocrd. fapillata. Obj. 00. Oc. 0.

i > = - = — from the side. Obj. 00. Oc. 0.

14. Secondary spine with «ampulla» from the abactinal side of Dorocitd. paprllata. Obj. 0. Oc. 0.
15. Piece of an actinal spine of Aypszech. coronatus. Obj. II. Oc. U1.

16. Large globiferous pedicellaria of Steveoctdari’s ingolfiana. Obj. II. Oc.o.

17. Actinal spine of Mypszech. coronatus. Obj. 0. Oc. 0.

18. Piece of an abactinal primary spine of Hypszech. coronatus. Obj. Il. Oc. o.

1g. Secondary spine of Steveoctdar’s ingolfiana. Obj. 00. Oc. 0.

20. Spine from the peristome of — i Obj. 0. Oc. 0.

21. Point of a valve of a small globiferous pedicellaria of Stereoctd. tugolfana. Obj. V. Oc. I.
22. — - = — pedicellaria of Poroctdari’s purpurata. Obj. V. Oc. o.

23. - small globiferous pedicellaria of Steroczd. zugolfiana. The two outer-

most teeth coalesced in the point. Obj. V. Oc. III.

24—25. Ambulacral and interambulacral area of Aypszechznus coronatus. 4/; The sutures of the
ambulacral area are not so distinct in the animal, as here in the figure.

26. Point of a valve of a large globiferous pedicellaria of Steveoczd. zugolfiana. Obj. V. Oc. 0.

27, — SO -— - = — - Dorocta. papillata. Obj. V. Oc. 0.

28. Small globiferous pedicellaria of Stereoczd. rngolfana. Obj. II. Oc. o.

29. Valve of a large globiferous pedicellaria of Stereocrd. zxgolfana, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. I.

30. — - - small - -- - -- -- = = ~side: (Obj) Ils Ocwe

(comp. Fig. 21.)

3r. Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Steveoc¢dari’s tncerta. Obj. A A. Oc. III. (Zeiss.)
22: — - - large globiferous pedicellaria of Stereocid. canaliculata, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. I.

- 33. Tridentate pedicellaria of Arbacina forbesiana. Obj. II. Oc. I.

34. Valve of small globiferous pedicellaria of Stereoc¢d. Mortensenz, from the inside. A A. Oc. I. (Zeiss.)

35. — - large - . — sp., from the inside. (Challenger. St. 156.
comp. p. 26.) Obj. II. Oc.o.

36. Valve of small globiferous pedicellaria of Steveoczd. zugolfana, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. I.

20 — - large -- - Acanthocrtdar’s curvatispinis, from the inside.
Obj. I. Oc. I.

38. Ophicephalous pedicellaria of Hypsvechinus coronatus. Obj. I. Oc. 0. 4

chinotdea 4. Tab t717.

L£

Th Mortensen

beth

x
x
°

Crdarida, lemnopleurida.

——

fi

Plate IX.

Valve of tridentate pedicellaria of Czdaris affinz's, from the side. Obj. IT. Oc. III.
— - small globiferous pedicellaria of Azstoc¢darts elegans (?), from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.

(See Appendix.)

Valve of large globiferous — - Dorocidaris papillata, - — Obj. II. Oc. o.
Stalk - — _ — - Tretoctdar’s annulata. Obj. II. Oc.o.
Valve - — — — - Doroctd. papillata, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc.o.
— - small — — - Phyllacanthus r~mpertal’s, from the side. Obj. IL.
Oc. II.
Valve of tridentate _ - Dorocrd. papillata, from the side. Obj. II. Oc.o.
— - small globiferous _ - Crdaris affinis (U.S. F.C), from the inside Obj. IL.
Oc. IIL.
Valve of large — _ - — — from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— - small _ — - Gonioctdaris btsertalzs, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. III.
—- - = _ — - Crdaris affints (U.S. F. C), from the side. Obj. Il.
Ocsrir
Stalk of large -- - — _ Obj, Oak
Valve - small — = - Dorocid. papillata, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I. (Comp.
Fig. 20.)
Valve of small a _ - _ — f. abysstcola, from the inside.
Obj. AA. Oc. III. (Zeiss.)
Valve of small globiferous — - — - from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. II.
— ~- large _ = - — Blaket, from the nside. Obj. II. Oc.o.

Point of a valve of a small globiferous pedicellaria of Cédart’s affinis (U.S. F.C). Obj. V. Oc. I.
Valve of tridentate pedicellaria of Cédaris affints (U.S. F.C), from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— - — _ _ - the side. Obj. II. Oc. 1
Point of a valve of a small globiferous pedicellaria of Doroctd. papillata. Obj. V. Oc. 0.
Tridentate pedicellaria of Crdards affinis (U.S. F.C). Obj. II. Oc. 0.

Valve of a large globiferous pedicellaria of Crdar?s affinzs, from the inside. Obj. I. Oc. I.
— - tridentate — a = - — Obj. I. Oc. IL.

Large globiferous pedicellaria of Czdarzs affinis. Obj.o. Oc. I.
Valve of tridentate pedicellaria of Doroczd. papillata, from the inside. * Obj. I. Oc.o.
— - large globiferous pedicellaria of Dovocid. (?) mzcans, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. o.

Tridentate pedicellaria of Dovocrd. paprllata. Obj.o. Oc. I.

Lichtnotdea L TablyV

Th Morterisen.

a

po

a

Cidartdea.

y /
cs -
¥
vo :
. a
3 '
* — —_
2
ey >,
»

r -

len!

An fw pv

IO.

Plate X.

Valve of pedicellaria of Porocedaris purpurata, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. o.

Obj. V. Oc. 0.

Valve of a large globiferous pedicellaria of Steveoctdari’s nutrix, from the side. Obj. II. Oc.o.
the inside. Obj. II. Oc.o.
— of pedicellaria of Poroctdaris purpurata, from the inside, the lower part. Obj. II. Oc.o.
Obj. II. Oc. III.

Obj. II. Oc. II.

Piece of the same, from the inside.

— - globiferous pedicellaria of Descoc¢dari's (2) serrata, from the inside.
the side.

— - tridentate — - Phyllacanthus tmperialts, from the side. Obj. AA. Oc. I
(Zeiss.)

Valve of tridentate - Acanthoctdaris curvatispints, from the side. Obj. AA. Oc. L.
(Zeiss.)

Valve of a large globiferous pedicellaria (a smaller specimen) of Zvetoc¢daris spinosa, from

the inside. Obj. II. Oc.o.

Valve of a large globiferous -- of Tretoctdarts spinosa, from the side. Obj. II. Oc.o.
—- — — — — - Steveoctdaris nutrix, - the inside. Obj. II. Oc.o.
— — small = — - Gontoctdaris umbraculum, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— — large = — - Stereoctdari’s nutrix, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. 0.
—- — — _ _- - Chondrocidarts gigantea, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— — small _— — - Tretoctdar’s spinosa, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. 0.
— — large — -— - Stephanocrdaris bispinosa (see Appendix), from the

inside. Obj. II. Oc.o.

Valve of a large globiferous _- - Stephanocrdarts bracteata, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.

Chondroctdaris gigantea, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. I.

a — = - Gontocidaris tubaria, - — Obj. IL. Oc. L.
ay SS Oe = = - — umbraculun, - _ Obj. IT. Oc. I.
—— == = = - Tretoctdaris annulata, - — Obj. IT. Oc.o.

(Zeiss.)
Valve of a small
(Zeiss.)
Valve of a large
small

Oc. VI. (Zeiss.)

— Bartlettz, from the side. Obj. AA. Oc. VI.

Stereocidarts nutvix, - — Obj. AA. Oc. III.

Schizoctdarts asstmilts, - —= Ob. 1 Oc me
Chondroctidaris gigantea, from the inside. Obj. AA.

Valve of a large — _ - Petaloctdaris florigera, - — Obj. AA.
Oc. VI. (Zeiss.)
Valve of a large — _— - Schizocidaris asstmilts, — - — Obj. II.

Oc. III.
Valve of a small

Petaloctdaris florigera, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. I.

— — large - - - Tretocidaris Bartlettiz, — — Obj. A A.
Oc. VI. (Zeiss.)
Valve of a large _ -- - _ annulata, — the side. Obj. II. Oc.o.

Wh.Mortensen. Ethinoidea 7. Tab X.

Cidarida.

—_ AY ( ee

“I

IO.

12.

Plate XI.

Piece of transverse section of a primary spine of Crdaris affinzs. Obj. II. Oc. o.
— - — — - spines of 7yomzkosoma Koehlerz; a—b. sections of primary actinal
spines, c. of an abactinal spine. Obj. II. Oc. I.
Piece of transverse section of a primary spine of Poroczdarts purpurata. Obj. II. Oc. I.
= = = — - spines of Aygrosoma Petersiz, a. section of a primary actinal
spine, b. of an abactinal spine. Obj. II. Oc. I.
Piece of transverse section of spines of Calverza hystrix; a. section of a primary actinal spine,
b. of an abactinal spine. Obj. IL. Oc. i.
Transverse section of a primary spine of Hypszechinus coronatus. Obj. II. Oc. III.
Piece of transverse section of spines of Phormosoma placenta, a. section of an abactinal spine,
b. of a primary actinal spine, lower part. Obj. II. Oc. L.
Piece of transverse section of a primary spine of Areosoma fenestratum. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— = — -- - spines of Sperosoma Grimaldi, a. section of a primary actinal
spine, b. of an abactinal spine. Obj. II. Oc. I.
Transverse section of a primary actinal spine of Phormosoma Placenta, outer part. The out-
line indicates the circumference of the bag of skin. Obj. II. Oc. I.
Spicule of a tube foot of Av@wosoma tesselatum. Obj. II. Oc. III.

a.b. Spicules from the organs of Stewart of Steveoctdar’s tngolfiana. Obj. I. Oc. I.

Spicules of a tube foot of Zyomzkosoma Koehlert. Obj. Il. Oc. I.

Piece of transverse section of a primary spine of Dovroczdaris papillata, young specimen.
Obj Octo:

Spicules of a tube foot of Av@osoma cortaceum;, a. from the outer, b. from the lower part
Obj. II. Oc. III.

.a—d. Spicules of the genital organs of Stereoctdarts tngolfiana. Obj. I. Oc. I.

Piece of a primary spine of a young Stereoctdaris tngolfiana. Obj. 00. Oc. 0.

Spicules of a tube foot, lower part, of Kamptosoma astertas («Ph. tenue». Chall. St. 272).
Obj AL Oc
Spicules of a tube foot of Hapalosoma pellucidum. Obj. I. Oc. III.
~ Asthenosoma varium. Obj. I. Oc. III.
- Poroctdaris purpurata. Obj. I. Oc. I.
— — — - Crdaris affinis; a. from the outer, b—c. from the lower part.
Obs Il OeL
Piece of the intestine, with imbedded spicules, of Steveoc¢dar’s tngolfiana. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— - transverse section of a primary spine of Doroczdaris (?) micans. Obj. IL. Oc. I.
Spicules of an abactinal tube foot of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. 11. Oc. I.
a—d.— of a tube foot of Dovoctdaris papillata. Obj. II. Oc. III.
- - Hygrosoma Peterst?. Obj. II. Oc. I.
.a—d. - - Stereoctdarits tngolfiana. Obj. II. Oc. III.

- Calveria hystrix. Obj. I. Oc. II.
Piece of a primary spine with the crest of a young Stereoczdari's ingolfiana, Obj. 00. Oc. 0.
- transverse section of a primary spine of Dorocrdaris papillata, larger specimen.
Obj Ocio:
Piece of the crest of a primary spine of Stereoczidaris tngolfiana. Obj. I]. Oc. 0.
— - transverse section of a primary spine of Stereocidar’s zngolfiana. Obj. II. Oc. I.

INMortensen, Echinoidea 1. Tab AT

soo

i ToTey
cs)

809,

ooeSo
20°So
J

Oo?
S02
oo

c
cos
C2905

°

09 00 OeaQ00
09000060000
QCO09000000

42200000 d0000
000000000000

000000000
0000000000
00000000090

a

See
700000 0000

Ss
N

‘O.0

0.0052,
0 seta Qe 089

0000000v0
000000000
00000000000
00000000000
(000000000 00
0000000000

ny Ke

Hf Petersens Th

Egrmort

gleusride.

tnothiuridae, Terran

Cidarida, Kich

Ads a on ou A

. hyesi dts
By Me vert inci ea ;

69 Pai al 4 Veh 4

a}

a -§ amt

Plate XII.

1. Valve of tridentate pedicellaria of Phormosoma bursarium, Obj. Il. Oc. 1.

2} — - — = - — placenta, from the Davis Strait. Obj. II. Oc. o.

3y i= — — - - — — the Gulf of Mexico. Obj. II. Oc.o.

4. Developmental stage of a large tridentate pedicellaria of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. II. Oc. o.

5. Valve of a half developed — — -- - — - Obj. IT. Oc. 0,

6. — — tridentate pedicellaria of Phormosoma rigidum. Obj. II. Oc. I.

ap. —- = a a - — placenta (Ingolf. St. 40). Obj. II. Oc. o.

8—r1o. ‘Transverse sections of the head of a globiferous pedicellaria of Hapalosoma pellucidum
8. nearest to the basis, 10. in the middle, 9. at the point. Obj. II. Oc. III.

11. Actinal primary spine of Phormosoma placenta, the bag of skin removed. Obj. oo. Oc. 0.

12. Valve of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Kameptosoma astertas. Obj. I. Oc. III.

ity — = - — - «Asthenos. gractle» (Chall. St. 219). Obj IL. Oc. III.

14. —- — — - Hapalosoma pelluctdum. Obj. Il. Oc. II.

15. Developmental stage of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Phorimosoma placenta. Obj. II. Oc. I.

16. Valve of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Aperosoma Grimaldi. Obj. II. Oc. I.

7 — = — — - Echinosoma uvanus. Obj. I. Oc. I.

18. —_— = — — - Asthenosoma varium. Obj. II. Oc. III.

19. Spine from the peristome of Phormosoma placenta; with bag of skin. Obj.o. Oc.o.

20. Valve of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Hygrosoma luculentum. Obj. II. Oc. I.

Zt — - Phormosoma placenta. Obj I. Oc. I.

22. — — tridentate — small form, of 7vomzkosoma Koehlert. Obj. II. Oc.o.

23. Spheeridia of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. I. Oc. I.

24. Developmental stage of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. I. Oc. 1.
25. Spheeridia of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. I. Oc. I.
26. Valve of a small tridentate pedicellaria of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. II. Oc. o.

27. — — triphyllous pedicellaria of Ar@osoma coriaceum. Obj. II. Oc. I.
28. =—- = — oo - Phormosoma bursarium, Obj. II. Oc. I.
22 — — -- — - Areosoma Bellz. Obj. U1. Oc. I.

30. Developmental stage of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Phormosoma placenta, Obj. II. Oc. I.
31. Valve of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Zvomzkosoma Koehler?. Obj. Il. Oc. I.

a2.

. — - Kamptosoma asterias («Phormosoma tenue», Chall. St. 272).
Obj. II. Oc. IIL.

33. Valve of a triphyllous — - Avreosoma fenestratum. Obj. II. Oc. I.

34. —_ — — — - Calveria hystrix. Obj. II. Oc. IIL

35. — — large tridentate pedicellaria of Echznosoma tenue, seen half from the side. Obj.o. Oc. 0.
36. — — tridentate — - — uvanus. Obj. Il. Oc L.

37 and 39. Valve of a small tridentate pedicellaria of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. II. Oc.o. The
edge finely serrate, which cannot be seen under the magnifying powers used in the drawing.
38. Valve of a half developed triphyllous pedicellaria of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. Il. Oc. I.

- 40. - — small tridentate pedicellaria of Achznosoma tenue. Obj. II. Oc. o.
4I. — — large — — - Tromikosoma Koehlert. Obj. 0. Oc.o.
42. — -- triphyllous pedicellaria of Hygrosoma Peterszt. Obj. I. Oc. I.

lhMorlensen. Eichinotdea 1 TabAH.

4,8
8 079g %5 900
2. 90°09 070%

2 Qn 0 Dis:
)
y

o

Ehtnolhurtde.

Fig.

lanl

2 SY

H
9

Tes

Dn fw pw

Plate XIII.

Tridentate pedicellaria, small form, of Asthenosoma vartum. Obj.o. Oc. I.

large

- Hygrosoma luculentum. Obj.o. Oc. o.

- Calveria gractlis. Obj.o. Oc. I.

Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria, short form, of Asthenosoma variun. Obj.o. Oc. I.

Tridentate pedicellaria, large form, of Av@osoma tesselatum. Obj. 0. Oc. o.

Valve of a large tridentate pedicellaria

broken, is partly constructed, may

Valve of a small tridentate pedicellaria

— — large
— — small
— — large

Obj. I. Oc. L.

small

Obj. 0. Oc. 0.

long, narrow form of Phormosoma placenta (Ingolf. St. 40). Obj.o. Oc. o.

of Aygrosoma Peterstz. Obj. Il. Oc I.

- Kamptosoma asterias. Obj. 11. Oc. I.

- Areosoma Belli. Obj.o. Oc. 1. The basal part was
be not quite correctly.

of Areosoma Bellz. Obj. I. Oc. I.

- Spevosoma Grimaldi? Obj.o. Oc. I.

- Hygrosoma Peterstt. Obj. 11. Oc. I.

- ~ luculentum. Obj. II. Oc. I.

- Kamptosomaastertas («Phormos. tenue». Chall. St. 272).

Tridentate pedicellaria, short form, of Aygrosoma luculentum. Obj.oo. Oc. I.

r7—18. Valves of tridentate pedicellarize of Calverza hystrix. Obj. I. Oc.o.

19.
20.

21.

Developmental stage of a spine of Phormosoma placenta. Obj. II. Oc. I.

Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Hapalosoma pellucrdum, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. I.

Tridentate pedicellaria, larger form, of Kamptosoma astertas («Phormos. tenue». Chall. St. 272).

Obj.o. Oc. I.

Valve of tridentate pedicellaria af Areosoma Bellz, Obj. I. Oc. 0.

Triphyllous pedicellaria of Spevosoma Grimaldiz. Obj.o, Oc. I.

Globiferous pedicellaria of Hapalosoma pellucidum. Obj.0. Oc. 0.

Valve of globiferous pedicellaria of Hapalosoma pellucidum, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. 1.
«Asthenosoma gracele» (Chall. St. 184). Obj. IL. Oc. I.

= - tridentate

Tridentate pedicellaria, short form, of Asthenosoma Gruber. Obj. 0. Oc. 0.

Th. Mortenser. Echinotdea 1. Tab XM

SS

(oo)

Oo CO

Cc

STS

fe0000 0 O00

BeocDo Oo

Echinothurtide.

Plate XIV.

1. Tridentate pedicellaria, smaller form, of Av@osoma fenestvatum. Obj.o. Oc. o.

2. Valve of a larger tridentate pedicellaria of Sperosoma Grimaldit. Obj.o. Oc. I.

a — — large -— — - Asthenosoma vartum. Obj.0. Oc. 0.

4. The point of an actinal tube foot of Sperosoma Grimaldit. Obj. I. Oc. I.

4.a. Spicules of tube feet of Spevosoma Grimaldiz; the two large ones from an actinal tube foot,
the small ones from an abactinal tube foot. Obj. II. Oc. I.

5. Valve of a large tridentate pedicellaria of Av@osoma coriaceum. Obj.o. Oc. o.

6 — — smaller — _ - Sperosoma Grimatdiz. Obj. Il. Oc. I.

7. Tridentate pedicellaria, large form, of Asthenosoma Gruber. Obj. oo. Oc. 0.

8. Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria, smaller form, of Avwosoma fenestratum. Obj. II. Oc. o.

9. - — — — - Hapalosoma pellucidum, the edge finely
serrate. Obj. II. Oc.o.

10. Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria, small — - Asthenosoma vartum. Obj. II. Oc.o.

11. Spheeridia of Sperosoma Grimaldi. Obj. I. Oc. I.

12. a - Tromtkosoma Koehlert. Obj. I. Oc. 0.

12s _ - Calveria hystrix. Obj. II. Oc. I.

14. - - Areosoma fenestratum. Obj. I. Oc. I.

15. Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Av@wosoma tesselatum. Obj. II. Oc. o.

16. - — - Tromtkosoma Koehlert, small form. Obj. Il. Oc. 0.

17—18. Valves of tridentate pedicellariz of Avwosoma fenestratum, small forms. Obj. II. Oc. o.

19. Valve of an ophicephalous pedicellaria of Zromzkosoma Koehlerz, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.

20. — _ ~- a tridentate — - <Asthenosoma gracile», Chall. St. 219. Obj. I. Oc. I.

21. Tridentate pedicellaria, large form, of 7romzkosoma Koehlert. Obj.o. Oc.o.

22. Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria, smaller form, of Kamptosoma astertas («Phormosoma tenue>,
Chall] St272)s Obj) JLOak

23. Valve of an ophicephalous pedicellaria of 7vomzkosoma Koehlert, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. 1.

24. — -a tridentate _ - Areosoma fenestratum, smaller form. Obj. II. Oc. o.

25. Ophicephalous pedicellaria of 7Zromzkosoma Koehlert. Obj.o. Oc. I.

26. Valve of a large tridentate pedicellaria of Calverta hystr¢x. Obj. II. Oc.o.

27. Spine with a parasitic Copepod, of Calverta gracilis. 4/;.

28. The point of a spine from the peristome of Zromzkosoma Koehlert. Obj. 0. Oc. 0.

29. Piece of a spine of Kamptosoma asterias. Obj.o. Oc. 0.

30. The point of a primary actinal spine of 7vomzkosoma Koehlert. 4)/;.

31. Outer end of the stalk of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Spevosoma Grimadldiz. Obj. II. Oc. I.

32. Valve of a large tridentate pedicellaria of Av@osoma fenestratum. Obj. II. Oc. 0.

33. ‘Tridentate pedicellaria of Sperosoma Grimaldit. Obj. 0. Oc. o.

WhMortensen Lchinotdea 1 Tab XIV

See a

Lamont H Petersens Tryk :

Kehinothurtde .

— |

Fig.

Plate XV.

Ambulacral area of Echzuus esculentus. */;.
Interambulacral area of Echinus acutus, var. norvegicus. ?/;.
— — - — affints. ?/;.
— — = — elegans. /;.
_ — - — esculentus. */;.
Apical area of Parechinus mtliarts. ?/;.
Ambulacral area of Parechinus miliaris. ?/;.
= — - — mucrotuberculatus. 7/1.
Interambulacral area of Parechtnus microtuberculatus. */;.
Ambulacral area of Echznus affinis. */, (young specimen).
Interambulacral area of Parechznus miliart’s. ?/;.
Apical area of Parechinus microtuberculatus. ?/;.
Ambulacral area of Echinus Alexandrt. ?/;.
_ — - — acutus, var. mediterranea. */;.
Interambulacral area of Achznus acutus, var. mediterranea. */;.
Ambulacral area of Echznus acutus, var. norvegicus. */;.

Interambulacral area of EHchinus Alexandrt. 2/,.

Th.Mortensen, Echinotdea 1 Tab NV.

a

a
°

tpi

be

ty
Err

Th. Mortensen del

' Echinus, Parechinus.

a

Plate XVI.

Interambulacral area of Stereocidaris ingolfiana. ?/;.
_ — - Echinus acutus, var. Flemingi. */;.
Apical area of Echinus elegans. ?/;.
— — - Strongylocentrotus drabachtensts. */;.
= — - Echinus acutus, var. norvegicus. a i
— — - — affinzs. ?/, With two pores in one of the genital plates.
— = = -- esculentus. */;.
— — - — Alexandr. ?/; With two pores in two of the genital plates.
— — - Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis. */;.
— — - Echinus acutus, var. Flemingtt. */;.
Interambulacral area of Strongylocentrotus drobachiensts, f. granularts. ?/;.
Plates from the buccal membrane and the gills of Echznus esculentus. a.b. from the buccal
membrane outside the buccal plates, c. from inside the buccal plates, d.e. f from the
gills. Obj. II. Oc. III.
Plates from the buccal membrane of Strongylocentrotus drobachiens?s. a. outside, b. inside the
buccal plates. Obj. II. Oc. III.
Plate from the buccal membrane of Parechinus microtuberculatus. Obj. 11. Oc. WL
= = = — - —- miliarts, Obj. I. Oc. II.
Plates from the buccal membrane and the gills of Echznus acutus, var. Fleming??. a.b. from
the buccal membrane outside the buccal plates, c. from inside the buccal plates, d.e.f from
the gills. a. b. Obj. II. Oc. I, c—f Obj. I. Oc. II.
Interambulacral area of Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis, {. pallidus. */;.
Ambulacral area of Echtnus acutus, var. Flemingit. */;.
— — — elegans. ?/;.
= —_ - -- affints. 2];
_ — - Strongylocentrotus drobachiensts, . granularts. ?/;.
— — - Echinus acutus, var. norvegicus, */;.

— — - Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis, t. pallidus. ?/;.

Ingolt Lxpeditionen LTET, Th. Mortensen. Fichinotdea 1 Tib ATT

Os
ON

Oo s07N

PAS

a
>

ast

3 1@) 6 &
$2

Coat
2

AN.
eke
oS

SZ es

me

PS
26:
Cpehicn

«

i] oS SS

Stereocidaris, Parechinus, Echinis, Stro agylocen trots

ee
0) 2d

iS)

Plate XVII.

Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Parechinus miliaris, from the side. Obj. V. Oc. 0.

tridentate

ophicephalous

triphyllous
globiferous
tridentate

globiferous

ophicephalous

tridentate

Spicules of Parechinus miliaris.

from the buccal membrane of Parechinus miliaris. Obj. II.

Ocoee

of Parechinus angulosus. Obj. UW. Oc. I.
- Stomopneustes variolaris. Obj. D. Oc. III. (Zeiss.)
- Loxechinus albus. Obj. II. Oc. I.

large form, of Parechinus angulosus. Obj. I. Oc.o.

from the inside, of Parechinus miliaris. Obj. V. Oc. 0.
of Parechinus miliaris. Obj. I. Oc. I.

small form, of Parechinus angulosus. Obj. II. Oc. I.

Obj. V. Oc. L

Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Parechinus miliaris, Obj. I. Oc. IT.

- Loxechinus gibbosus. Obj. U1. Oc. I.

Spicules from the gills of Stomopneustes variolarts, Obj. D. Oc. 1. (Zeiss.)

Valve of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Parechinus miliaris. Obj. V. Oc. 0.

End-tooth of a globiferous pedicellaria of Parechinus miliaris. Obj. V. Oc. IIT.

Valve of a

tridentate pedicellaria of Stomopneustes variolaris. Obj. D. Oc. IL. (Zeiss.)

globiferous
tridentate
globiferous

tridentate

Tridentate pedicellaria

Globiferous

Triphyllous

as

=

—27. Spheeridize of Parechinus

Parechinus mitiaris.

miliaris.

= Obj. D. Oc. I. (Zeiss.)

Loxechinus albus. Obj. Il. Oc. 0.
Paracentrotus lividus. Obj. I. Oc. I.

Stomopneustes variolarts; from the inside. Obj. D. Oc. I.

(Zeiss.)

Paracentrotus lividus. Obj.o. Oc. I.

Obj. II. Oc. I.
open. Obj. IL. Oc. I.
shut, (Obl Oc
Obj. Il. Oc. L.

Obj. IL. Oc. IH.

Ophicephalous pedicellaria of Parechinus miliaris, Obj. I. Oc. I.

Th.Mortensen. L£htnotdea l.TabAVH.

Z,
a

vest te

RP,
Cxerm Ll

Ler

Tryk

Ligmont f Petersen.

Parechinis, Loxechinius, Paracentrotus, Si lomayineustes.

Plate X VIII.

Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Echinus acutus, var. norvegicus, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— — globiferous = - — elegans, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. I.
—- — - . = — - - side. Obj. Il. Oc. I.
Tridentate pedicellaria of Echinus affinis. Obj.o. Oc.o.
— — = — acutus. Obj. 0. Oc. 0.
Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Echinus acutus, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— — tridentate _ - — — var. zorvegicus, from the inside. Obj. II.
Oc. I.
Spicules of Achinus melo. Obj. V. Oc. I.
Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Echimus Alexandri (The type-specimen). Obj. II. Oc. o.
—- — = — - — gracilis. Obj. II. Oc I.
— = —- — - — Alexandrt. Obj. I. Oc. I.
Spicules of Echinus esculentus. Obj. V. Oc. I.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria, small form, of Echznus esculentus. Obj. Il. Oc. 0.
Spicules of Zchinus acutus, var. Flemingu. Obj. V. Oc. I.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria, small form, of Echinus gracilis. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— — globiferous —- of Echinus affinis. Obj. 11. Oc. I.
~ - — atlanticus. Obj. II. Oc. 0.
— = — melo. Obj. II. Oc.o.
— — triphyllous _ - _ Alexandri (type-specimen). Obj. II. Oc. IL.

~ — tridentate _ - -- esculentus. Obj. II. Oc. 0.
a = _ = — gracilis, large form. Obj. IL. Oc.o.
= ~ _ - — elegans, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. o.
= = = = = — Alexandrt, from the inside. Obj. 0. Oc. I.
Globiterous pedicellaria of Achinus acutus, var. norvegicus. Obj.o. Oc. I.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Echinus Alexandri, from the side. Obj. Il. Oc. I.
— elegans, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.
— lucidus. Obj. II. Oc. I.
Sect ae = _ - — affints. Obj.o. Oc. I.

|

S S

XR %

x §

R

: :

x 8

N Ri

iN :

= Ry

8

s

8

3

S Cx. ere

SS
o
= : 8
‘ :
u S

3

z S
‘ ty
5

Echirizs.

~_

Plate XIX.

Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Colobocentrotus atratus. Obj. II. Oc. I.
= -- - Sterechinus horridus. Obj. I. Oc. I.
— margaritaceus. Obj. Il. Oc.o.

— — globiferous — - Toxoctdaris tuberculatus, from the side. Obj. I. Oc. I. :
— - Colobocentrotus atratus. Obj. AA. Oc. III. (Zeiss.)
— - Heltocidaris chloroticus, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. L.

— — tridentate a - — —_ rarituberculatus. Obj. U1. Oc. I.

—- = -— _ - Yoxocidaris tuberculatus. Obj.o. Oc. I.

—- — a — - _ ~- broad form. Obj. II. Oc. I.

— — ophicephalous — Echitnus elegans. Obj. II. Oc. I.

— — tridentate _ - Sterechinus magellanitcus, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. III.

— — globiferous - Helroctdaris chloroticus, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. L.
- - Toxoctdari’s tuberculatus, from the inside. Obj. I. Oc. I.

— _ _ - Sterechinus Neumayert. Obj. II. Oc. I.

— — trideutate _ - Heterocentrotus mamillatus. Obj. AA. Oc. III. (Zeiss.)

— — ophicephalous — - Echinus Alexandr?. Obj. Il. Oc. II.

— — tridentate — - Sterechinus magellanicus, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. II.

— — globiferous -— - Echitnus luctdus. Obj. I. Oc. 1.

—- — -— _ - Pseudechinus albocinctus. Obj. I. Oc. I.

- + — — - Sterechinus margarttaceus. Obj. I. Oc. I.

— — tridentate _ - Echinometra van Bruntz. Obj. AA. Oc. I. (Zeiss.)

— — _ globiferous ~- - Sterechinus horrtdus. Obj. I. Oc. 1.

— - -- magellanicus. Obj. II. Oc. I.
—- — — = - Echinus esculentus. Obj. U. Oc. I.
— — tridentate - - Pseudechinus albocinctus. Obj. 11. Oc. I.
Spheeridia of Echznus elegans. Obj. I. Oc. III.
_ - — affints. Obj. II. Oc. III.
— esculentus. Obj. II. Oc. II.
Valve of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Helzoctdar’s chloroticus. Obj. I. Oc. II.
Spheeridia of Echznus esculentus. Obj. II. Oc. III.
= - — Alexandri. Obj. II. Oc. IIL.
_ - = acutus, var. Flemingiz. Obj. II. Oc. II.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Svterechinus margaritaceus. Obj. Il. Oc. o.
— - Echinus Alexandri (Type-specimen). Obj. II. Oc. o.
—- = _ -— - Heterocentrotus trigonarius. Obj. AA. Oc. II. (Zeiss.)

Two valves of an ophicephalous pedicellaria, in connection, of Echznus acutus. Obj. Il. Oc. 1

Valve of an ophicephalous pedicellaria of Achznus atlanticus. Obj. I]. Oc. 0.
— — tridentate -- - — Alexandri, very small form (of a small
specimen). Obj. II. Oc. III.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Helzoctdar’s chloroticus. Obj. II. Oc. I.

WMorlensen, Echinotdea 1 TabXTKX

Echintide, Echtromelrida.

aN

J

Fig.

Plate XX.

Tridentate pedicellaria of Echinus Alexandrt. Obj.o. Oc. I.
Spicules of Echznus Alexandri. Obj. V. Oc. I.
Valve of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis. Obj. 11. Oc. III.

— — tridentate — - = — £. granulatus. Obj.o. Oc. 1.
— — ophicephalous — - — — Obj. II. Oc. IL.

— — tridentate _ - — -- ObjyosOcwr

— — triphyllous — - Sterechinus Neumayert. Obj. I. Oc. III.

Spicules of Echznus elegans. Obj. V. Oc. I.
Tridentate pedicellaria, small form, of Hchznus elegans. Obj. I]. Oc. 0.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Strongylocentrotus pulcherrimus. Obj. 11. Oc. 0.
Tridentate pedicellaria of Sterechinus Neumayert. Obj.o. Oc. I.
Spicules of Strongylocentrotus drebachiensis. Obj. V. Oc. I.
Spheeridia of — _ Ojoy JUG Ores WOE
Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc.o.
Globiferous pedicellaria of Psammechinus variegatus. Obj. 11. Oc.o. The skin full of spicules.
Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis, from the inside.
joy We OxeIe
Spicules of Lchznus affinis. Obj. V. Oc. I.
Spheeridia of Strongylocentrotus drebachiensts. Obj. IL. Oc. II.
Tridentate pedicellaria, large form, of Achznus elegans. Obj.o. Oc. 0.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Strongylocentrotus drobachiensts. Obj.o. Oc. I.
— — triphyllous — - Echinus affints. Obj. I. Oc. IIL.
— - — elegans. Obj. II. Oc. III.

Stalk of a globiferous pedicellaria of Echznus elegans. Obj. I. Oc. I.

Spine from the buccal plates of Achinus esculentus. Obj.o. Oc. 0.
Globiferous pedicellaria, the neck protruded, of Strongylocentrotus drabachtensis. The spicules
are drawn only on the upper side of the head. Obj.o. Oc. I.

Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Strvongylocentrotus drabachiensis, from the side. Obj. II. Oc.I.

— — ophicephalous — large form, of Echznus Alexandri. Obj. II. Oc. 0.
— — globiferous -- of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. o.
Globiferous pedicellaria, the neck retracted, of Strongyloc. drobachiensis. Obj.o. Oc. III. i:

Spine of Echinus esculentus, the basal part. Obj.o. Oc.o.

‘a

pectin Sa ae nc feet
—_—_- a

ThMortensen Lchinotdeadl. Tab AK.

Trak

rsers 177

Pete.

grand: LL.

nis, Sterechinus, Psammechinirs, Strongylocen trols.

E

Plate X XI.

Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Pseudoboletia maculata. Obj.o. Oc. 1.

re ES = = - Psammechinus verruculatus. Obj. IU. Oc. I.

ty OS = — Tripneustes esculentus. Obj. I. Oc. 0.
= — - Gymnechinus Robillard?, from the side. Obj. Il. Oc. L.
— — ophicephalous — - Pseudoboletia maculata. Obj. II. Oc. I.

— tridentate = - Anthoctdar’s homalostoma. Obj. II. Oc. o.
— - Gymnechinus darnleyensts. Obj II. Oc. I.

—- = _ = - Pseudocentrotus depressus. Obj. 0. Oc. 0.
= = Obj. II. Oc. o.
a — — - Psammechinus variegatus. Obj. 11. Oc.o.
—= — — — - Gymnechinus- Robitiardz, from the inside. Obj. I. Oc. I.
Spicules of Spherechtnus granularts. Obj. V. Oc. IIL. 4
Valve of a globiferous pedicellaria of Zoxopneustes pileolus. Obj. I. Oc. 0.
Spicules of Psewdocentrotus depressus; a. from the tube feet, b. from the pedicellarie.
Obj. V. Oc. 0.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Pseudocentrotus depressus. Obj. 11. Oc. 0.
— — - Tripneustes esculentus. Obj. I. Oc. o.
_ -- - Pseudoboletia maculata, small form. Obj. 0. Oc. I.

Plates from the buccal membrane and the gills of Achznmus Alexandr?z; a. from the buccal
membrane inside of the buccal plates, b.c. from the gills. Obj. I]. Oc. I.
Piece of the stalk of a pedicellaria of Echznus Alexandri. Obj. V. Oc. I.
— — edge of a tridentate pedicellaria of Ech. Alexandri. Obj. V. Oc. II.
Spicules of Zoxopneustes pileolus, a. from globiferous pedicellariz, b. from tube feet, c. from
the buccal membrane. Obj. V. Oc. L.
Valve of an ophicephalous pedicellaria of 77zpneustes esculentus. Obj. II. Oc. I.
Spicules from pedicellarize of Gymnechinus darnleyensts. Obj. V. Oc. IL
— - Gymnechinus Robitiardz, a. from pedicellariz, Obj. V. Oc. I, b. from the buccal
membrane. Obj. II. Oc. I.
Piece of the edge of a tridentate pedicellaria of Echznus acutus, var. Flemitngzit. Obj. V. Oc. III.
— — stalk of a pedicellaria of Echznus acutus, var. Flemingzt. Obj. V. Oc. L.
Plate from the buccal membrane, outside of the buccal plates, of Achznus Alexandrt. Obj. 11. Oc. I.
Spicules from pedicellariz of Psammechinus verruculatus. Obj. V. Oc. IIL.
-- - — - Pseudoboletia maculata. Obj. V. Oc. I.
- - tube feet of Anthoctdaris homalostoma. Obj. V. Oc. 0.
— - globiferous pedicellaria of Psammechinus vartegatus; a developmental series.
Obj WieOc Ti:
- tube feet of Parasalenia gratiosa. Obj. V. Oc. I.
— of Tripneustes esculentus;, a. from globiferous pedicellariz, b. from tube feet, c. d. from
the buccal membrane. Obj. V. Oc. I.
Valve of a tridentate pedicellaria of Spherechinus granularts. Obj.o. Oc. I.
_ globiferous = — - _ — from the side. Obj. II. Oc. 0.
_-_ = = — - Gymnechinus darnleyensis. Obj. I. Oc. II.

-- — — - Spherechinus granularts, from the inside. Obj. II. Oc. o.
— — —~ - Psammechinus vartegatus, - - _ Obj. II. Oc. I.

— - - - - Tripneustes esculentus. Obj. 11. Oc. I.
— — - Psammechinus vartegatus, from the side. Obj. II. Oc. I.

i)

— tridentate _ Toxopneustes pileolus. Objo. Oc.o.

Uh .Morlerser.. Ech tnotdedl TabNXX7.

ThMoreensen del Egmont Petersen: Try ke Benitzenb lke est Cathe

Echinida, Toxapneust(de.

‘ € "
7 >
7 +
iy. ‘
_ x .
- > a
.
» '
5 =
- = 7
“
.
‘
—_ A
o See a
-7
®
.
{
:
¥
,
: .
rs
a
.
<

tie etN eG Okrea x. PE DITION

£30 5—=18.9/6.

THE LOCALITIES, DEPTHS, AND BOTTOMTEMPERATURES OF THE STATIONS.

| | Depth | | | Depth | | Depth
Station TERN Long. W. in Bortom:| Station Lat. N. | Long. W. in | Bottom. | Station Lat. N. |Long. w. in Bottom-
Nr. Danish | temp. Nr. Danish | temp. | Nr. Danish temp.
| fathoms | fathoms | fathoms 3
7
I 62° 30 8° 21’ 132 Fo2 24 63° 06° 56° 00’ 1199 2°4 45 61° 32 9° 43° 643 4°17
2 63° 04 ge 22° 2628 |) 523 25 63°°20) 54° 25 582 B02 | 46 | 612/39" 11°36’ | 720 2°40
Bye less: || 107724" | 4272) | 05, | 6geist” || 53203" || 136 Aq, 6x2 32"")| 13°40" || 950" | 13223
4 641079 | Tr 12" 237 | 205 | 26 63° 57 52 2.AT 34 0°6 | 48 61° 32" | speed bbe | 1150 307,
5 64° 40 | 12° 09’ 155 | 64° 37° 54° 24° 109 | 49 | 622077 | T5c107" ||| DLO 2°gI
6 63°43 | 14°34 | go 7°0 | 27 | 64°54’ | 55° 10 393 3°8 || 50 | 62° 43° | 15°07’ | 1020 3°13
7 62° 13% 15° 4 | 600 AOS) 28: 65° 14 55° 42" 420 305 51 | 64°15 | 14° 22’ 68 O22
8 63° 56 | 24° 40° 136 6°0 29 65° 34 SAC aT | 65 0°2 52 63° 57° 13° 32 420 7°87
9 64° 18’ | 27°00 295 5°58 | 30 66° 50 54° 28 22 1°05 Be i 6z0mn5) 15°07) 795 3°08
10 64° 24° 28° 50° 788 3°5 31 66° 35 55054: | 8s 1°6 54 | 63° 08’ 15° 40° 691 3°9
ioe 64° 34 31° 12 1300 1°6 | 32 66° 35 56° 38 318 329ie ye 55)) | eO3e133% 15° 02 316 5°9
H |
12 64°38" | 32°37 | x00 | 0°3 | 33 G77 || 501739 5m O28 56 | 64°00 | 15° 09 68 7°37
I
13 64° 47° | 34°33 622 3°0 | 34 65°17 | 54°17 55 57 63° 37° | 13°02 350 3°4
THe OOS 1) (a5 C1O5 176 Arg | 35 65°16 | 55° 05 362 3°6 58 64° 25 12° 0g 211 o°S
r5; |) 662018" 25° 59 330 | —0°75 | 36 61° 50° 56° ar’ 1435 135 59 | 65° 00 PTS 'T6: 310 | —o°!
16 | 65° 43° | 26°58) |) 250! |) 16°r | 37 | 60° 17 | 54°05 | 1715 1°4 60 65° 09 12° 27 124 0°9
17 62° 40° | 26° 55° | 745 3°4 | 38) 59052 51.05, 1870 r3 61 65° 03 13° 06 55 o°4
18 | 61° 44’ | 30°29 | 1135 | 3°0 39 62° 00’ 22° 38) 865 2°9 | 62 63° 18" 192-12’ 72 7°92
19 | 60° 20/ | 34° 14° | 1566 2°4 | 4o 62° 00 21° 36 845 303) 3 62° 40" | 19° 05 Soo 4°o
20 | 58°20 | 40° 48’ | 1695 1°5 | 4I 61° 39° 17° 10 1245 2°o 64 62° 06’ 19° 00 IO4I Ror
21 58° or’ | 44° 45° 1330 2°4 | 42 61° 4 10° 17 625 o°4 65 61° 33 19° 00 1089 3°0
22 | 58°10 | 48°25 | 1845 | 1°4 43 | 61° 42’ | To? 11 645 0°05 66 61° 33° | 20° 43 1128 3°3
23 | 60° 43 | 56° 00° peel | 44 61° 42 9° 36 545 4°8 67 61° 30 22° 30 975 3°0

used

Depth | | | Depth Depth
Sai - | a Deas ri Dan pres ; ae | Lat N. Long. W. Danish pe } a eee mee Tee ;
athoms athoms fathoms
] |
68 62° 06 22° 30 843 BoA 92 64° 44’ | Becs2: 976 1° 118 68° 27’ 8° 20° 1060 | —r1°o
69 | 62° 40° | 22°17 589 3°9 93 | 64°24 | 35° 14 767 1°46 ||| Lrg | 67°53) || rong i010 | —1°o
70 63° 09° =| 22°05 134 7°0 04 64° 56° | 36° 19° 204 4°r 120 67° 29° ime Bey 885 | —1°o
71 63° 46 22° 03" 46 65° 31 30° 45° 213 121 66° 59’ 10h) art! 529 —0°7
72 | 63°12" | 23° 04 197 | 6°7 95 65° 14° | 30° 39! 752 25% 122 | 66° 42° | 14° 44° 115 1°8
73 | 62° 58 23° 28 A860 | 525 96 65° 24 29° 00’ 735 T° 123 66° 52’ 15° 40 145 2°0
74 | 62°17" + | 24°36 695 4°2 97 65° 28). | 27° 39° 450 BeS 124 67° 40° | 15° 40 495 | —0°6
61° 57 | AEG 761 98 65° 38 | 26° 27’ 138 5°9 125 68° 08’ | 16° 02’ 729 | —o°8

| 61° 28° =| 25° 06 829 99 66° 137 | 25° 53° 187 6°r 126 67°19 | 15°52 293 | —0°5
75 61° 28’ =| 26° 25 780 | 4°3 100 Gok 2ce lard cio2: 59 0°4 127 66° 33° | 20°05 44 5°6
76 60° 50° 26° 50’ 806 4°1 IOI 669226 12205: 537. | —0°7 128 66° 50° | 20°02’ 194 0°6
77 60° 10) 26° 59 951 3°6 102 66° 23, 10° 26° 750 | —0°9 129 662257 22071 117 6°5
78 60° 37 | 27° 52 799 4°5 103 66° 23 8° 52’ 579 | —0%6 130 632%00% || 20240: 338 6°55
79 60° 52’ | 28°58 653 4°4, 104 66° 23 Wakes | 997 to 131 63°00’ | 19° 09! 698 4°7
80 61° 02" 29° 32’ 935 4°o 105 | 65° 34° Gio Bin. | 762 —o°8 132 63° 00° 17° o4' 747 4°6
81 61° 44 27° 00° 485 6°! 106 65° 34 8° 54’ 447 | —0°6 133 63° 14’ Ir? 24° 230 222)
82 61°55 | 27°28 824 4° 65°29 | 8°40 466 134 62° 34’ | 10° 26 299 4°1
83. | 62°25’ | 28° 30! giI2 395 107 65° 33 ~+| 10° 28° 492 | —o°3 135 62° 48’ 9° 48" 270 o0°4,

| 62° 36 26° o1' 472 108 (aster |) soo | 97 Tiel 1 136 63° or Gp ie 256 4°8

| 62°36’ | 25° 30 4or 109 | 65°29) | 13° 25 38 Des 13 7a OS gatA ea nO ain 297 | —0°6
84 62° 58’ 25° 24 633 4°8 110 66° 44’ Tess 3h 781 —o°8 138 63° 26’ 7°56) 471 | —0o°6
85 63 0r2Ts \\son Oran 170 orn | 167914) 18°: 48h 860 | —o°9 139 63° 36° ORO! 7o2 | —o0°6
86 65° 036 | 23° 47'6 76 112 | 67° 57 6° 44’ 1267 ||) rr 140 63° 29 Gekse 780 | —o°9
87 | 65° 02’; | 23° 56’2 110 113 | 69° 31’ 7° 06’ 1309 | —1°o 14t 63° 22’ 6° 58’ 679 | —0°6
88 64° 58 | 24° 25° 76 | 6°9 114 70° 36° Wp @ey 773 | —1°o 142 63° 07° 705 587 | —0°6
89 64° 45 27° 20° 310 8°4 115 70° 50° 8° 29’ 86 lobe 143 62° 58" 7° 09 388 | —o4
go 64° 45 | 29° 06° 568 | 4°4 116 70° 05° 8° 26’ 371 | —o°4 144 | 62° 49) cule 276 1°6
gr | 64°44’ =| 31° co! 1236 Bor 117 69° 13/ 8° 23’ 1003. | —r°o

|

0-4 0-0~—

yOrMUIITH

9Pe#eIrTd

ST oa

ote — G6 On 6 nr

|

Ore

o%6

pupsprag 7UuLems bo ppyoy Uiappaus arierpasuaty

SUMLOU PD J

IY) PD LAVA ULIIM PUP PP] OI UIIMPAIG VET

ysrupp ) @UsD 7 aysunp

‘9681 ¥ S68T UsuOrTpedxg” J

josuT

THE DANISH

/

F-EXPEDITION.

f VOL. IV, PART 2.

pee CONTENTS: :

TH, MORTENSEN: ECHINOIDEA. (Il.)

i oy
PUBLISHED AT THE COST OF THE GOVERNMENT

y & : * ‘BY

1 ; DIRECTION OF THE ZOOLOGICAL MUSEUM OF THE UNIVERSITY.

NAME Ye
eS COPENHAGEN.
icine ee te eet eo —H. HAGERUP.
<3 = % 2 PRINTED BY BIANCO LUNO..
1907+ . \

BY

THE DANISH INGOLF-EXPEDITION.

VOLUME IV.
2.

AC OD EA.

(PART IL)

BY

TH. MORTENSEN.

WITH 19 PLATES AND 27 FIGURES IN THE TEXT.

Sti a hi
Sey
|
\
COPENHAGEN.

PRINTED BY BIANCO LUNO.

1907.

ns:

. ; |, eae -

-
-

Ready from the Press November the rath 1907.

CONTENTS.

Echinoidea.
Page | Page
MnerOR et CHOM Nrecr mens veaetece cme ee yet tee eieseiste, stevelakenel® ovauerceushess Bs Aéropsis rostrata (Wyv. Thoms.) ...................- go.
Suborder Clypeastroid eae ye, sapere coy crctan sv eielais rote caren = mes 28. | Rlemiastervexperpitussloventy. sole ssccs cc sace ceca 97-
Ices Jeri iter, oar ea Goan eb O00 edad Goon SOOT RAG ROS OE 28. | Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis (Diib. Kor.)............ 108.
Echinocyamus pusillus (O. F. Miill.).................. 28. | Spatangus purpureus O.-F SMW ooo. oc cieeteeeessie 123.
SuborderpMeridosternatal ser .teyls-sis shes ever slesels o cele sous eters lav 39. | — RASCHICT OVEN Gees ecm cietaye lege oie eters ere ransrere 129.
let, WpdaelethinGha. 5. a oopodmanuoOoNon du SUd ORAS ean Done 39. | Echinocardium flayescens (O. F. Miill.).............. 132.
Wrechinus naresianus As Aig. co pyeyerensysrsieicie sieves cieieeeienevene 39. | _— pennatifidum Norman.............. 139.
Plexechinuswhirsutus Mirtsms)ysy.)5 aerryers © evsjis sicrerersi = aye 54. | — cordatumy (Pent) yer aei-leterelei serine 145.
ammmPourtalesiidaeyvacyyre cicictteleleys colt elope esais. ral ercreicis syste 58. | Brissopsis: lyriferas ((POrDeS) | s.c<ctee aeie eee nie siete esa iors 152.
Pourtalesia Jeffreysi Wyv. Thoms. ................... 58. | Wddendavety Corrig en date rrys sate oter teterslate raters srclovexhspmeceieirese 169.
_— Wand eltsWirtsn sy prisetioctacta cites leioeree1e- 63. | Geographical distribution of the Echinoidea of the Nor-
Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) phiale Wyv. Thoms......... 68. theruAtlantichenreciirectiereencr ren ciel mictvelta re eereyas 177
_ -- paradoxa Mrtsn. .........,... 72. | List of the Echinoidea occurring in the Atlantic ....... 192.
SubordermAmphisterta tay cays sei\eierersiarers: suckotelclels i= ceed s/ofers s1e) vais Choral) AbiVils-<5%. a sap no apAdoUDUbESbouDapocudeEuacdRocosGouguadEs 195-
lstainl, GopkehaGes oon sono oonodadconue aCTAO CRA OnMD onan go.

7, 7) Oty
ay rer

rl, ' : ist

‘eet
7 Pa 7
- 3 ;
' = > 0 yy} n - ;
‘ e
5 !
| ‘ | (ri
4 «04 :
Hs Ay ; a
ar: ; via) mee
ane Bat V4 ie Wt Me oe hie PY,
’ U te :
r anh : Ls : : nee - of Peay iF a
v h BI eae :
ay, Ap Se
. A>
ial a . ed av WY ec:
mine vias meas

Echinoidea.
II

by

Th. Mortensen.

s in the Introduction to Part I of the «Ingolf»-Echinoidea I have the agreeable duty to tender
(aN my best thanks to several Colleagues, who have assisted me by sending material or otherwise.
I beg to offer my sincerest thanks to Dr. F.A. Bather, Professor F. Jeffr. Bell, Prof. C Chun, Prot.
E. Deoderlein, Dr. R. Fourtau, Prof. L. Joubin, Prof R. Koehler, Dr. J. Lambert, Prof.
H. Ludwig, Prof. E. v. Marenzeller, Dr. J.C. H. de Meijere, Dr. M. Meissner, Prof. G. Pfeffer,
Prof. R. Rathbun, Miss M. J. Rathbun, Prof. Hj. Théel, Prof. A. EK. Verrill, Prof. M. Weber. |
ain especially indebted to Professor D6derlein for sending me the proof sheets of his great work ou
the Echinoidea of the German Deep-Sea Expedition and thus enabling me to use this work, before it
was published. — Of material importance tor my study of the irregular Echinoids have been repeated
visits to the British Museum, where Professor F. Jeffr. Bell with his usual great liberality gave me
access to the extremely important collection of Echinoidea from the «Challenger»-Expedition as well
as the other extensive collections of Echinoids in this Museum. Further, it was of the highest impor-
tance for me that I was, through the liberal grant of the Carlsberg Fund, enabled to visit those
North American Museums in which more considerable collections of Echinoidea are preserved. It was,
of course, rather a great disappointment for me that I could not get permission to make any studies
of the large and extremely important collections in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard
College; but, fortunately, I found in the U.S. National Museum, where I met the greatest liberality
from Professor R. Rathbun and Miss M. J. Rathbun, almost all the types which I wanted especially
to study; and the study of the rich collections from the «Albatross» preserved there also gave many
important results. Likewise I had occasion to make several important observations in the Peabody
Museum, Yale College, where Professor A. E. Verrill most liberally gave me access to the whole

collection of the Museum.

Copenhagen, February 1907.
The Author.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2

eshionitiod 0s
. a : ‘er i
Wis . 5, sae s

‘ : Ses cal

Sine ws re “T ah

; Chest cule ’
pol? mé met dealt

if ¥ SA A |

ae has To aN epi
i OG Cas iP age) lade
J Trae a
cn eax ary = rsa by
& ? 4 hy J dar? TP Gat bisa f ai LL .
' : mw L as apesk® he wd the
. j bellied ‘rare
Bt nee
a, =a op ine is iy a pe
full
no Bac Pe

ety sete yt a ‘
f 7 ay

; | je evi eg
i } Veh ‘hudba 4

ii ey

: og
Ee a,

Introduction.

Since the publication of the first Part of this work (1903) three great and highly important
works on Echinoids have been published, viz. De Meijere: Die Echinoidea der Siboga-Expedition
(1904. Siboga-Expeditie. XLIIT), A. Agassiz: The Panamic Deep-Sea Echini (1904. Mem. Mus. Comp.
Zool. XXXI) and L. Déderlein: Die Echinoiden der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition (1906. Deutsche
Tietsee-Exped. 1898-—g9. Bd. V). De Meijere and Déderlein agree with me upon the whole in the
views on the classification of the regular Echinoids and on the systematic importance of pedicellaric
and spicules set forth by me in the first part of this work and in my work on the Echinoidea (I) of
the Danish Expedition to Siam 1899—1g00 (Mém. Acad. Roy. d. Se. et d. Lettres de Danemark. 7. Sér. I.
1904). De Meijere only reserves his opinion as to my classification of the Cidarids, though recognizing
the importance of the differences in the structure of the pedicellariee made known by me; his objec-
tions that my diagnoses of the genera do not correspond with some of his new species and that my
classification leads to a great dismemberment of the system, I have replied to in my paper On some
Echinothurids from Japan and the Indian Ocean» (Ann. Nat. Hist. Ser. 7. Vol. XIV. 1904. p. 91—92).
Doéderlein after most careful and extensive researches states the general correctness of my views,
though, as might be expected from his somewhat better material, he has been able to improve the classi-
fication in several respects. Above all his results as regards the classification of the Crdarid@ are highly
important, and his arrangement of this family will doubtless prove correct, in any case for the very
largest part of it; upon the whole, I think, Déderlein is quite right in the several corrections of my
arrangement of genera and species of the regular Echinoids, though on this occasion I cannot enter
on a further discussion thereof. (I must, however, reserve my opinion as to Déderlein’s views of the
species of S/erechinus, till I have made renewed studies on this group, which I intend to undertake
in the works on the Echinoidea of the German and the Swedish South Polar Expeditions). On this
occasion I can only express my admiration for the very clear and sound way in which Professor
Doderlein in his Introduction sets forth the signification of such structures as the pedicellarize in
the classification of Echinoids and meets the different objections which have been or might be made
against this use of them.

In marked contrast to these two authors Professor A. Agassiz practically rejects all my results,
and expresses his contrary opinions in a way that seems to me not justified even by so great a renown
as his. The objections set forth by the famous author I do not find very strong, except as regards
the way in which they are expressed; but, of course, any criticism by so eminent an authority on the
Echinoidea demands a careful and detailed consideration. It was my intention to publish a reply to
the more personal criticisms of Professor Agassiz as a separate paper in some Periodical; but though

I might well be entitled to have published in some American Journal a defence against an unjust

I

ECHINOIDEA. II.

accusation of gratuitous misrepresentation of facts» set forth in one of the most prominent American
Periodicals by one of the most famous American Naturalists, I could not succeed in getting it pub-
lished and I must therefore publish the necessary remarks here.

In the introduction to his memoir Professor Agassiz states that I show but little appreciation of
the work of my predecessors, and De Meijere is included under this accusation, since he agrees with
me in regarding the minute microscopical structures of pedicellariz and spicules as of considerable
importance for classification. «Dr. Mortensen,» says Professor Agassiz, «practically rejects all the work
of his predecessors and challenges it as worthless because it is not based upon his methods for the
solution of all Echinological problems. Like all classifications based upon a single character the results
obtained culminate in such impossible associations that we are loath to follow his lead.» — «I must
protest against the temper and style of criticism adopted by Dr. Mortensen; even if he were right,
his assumption of omniscience 1s offensive to the utmost, and his personal remarks are entirely out
of place in a scientific memoir. He concludes these very unrestrained remarks with the following
quotation from a newspaper: ‘The results should diminish the patronizing certainty of «knowing it all
which distinguishes Dr. Mortensen’s work, and forbids us, his predecessors, to discuss matters of which
we must be in the nature of the case, wholly ignorant.

First, as regards the temper and style of my criticism, I must confess my deep regret at having
been so unhappy in my mode of expression. I always had and will have a very great respect for the
author of that immense work «The Revision of Echini», which must always remain the basis for the
study of recent Echinoidea, even though its classification may prove untenable and the descriptions
of genera and species more or less unsatisfactory. When my examination of the original material in
the British Museum led me to publish several corrections of the same authors Report on the «Chal-
lenger»-Echinoidea, I always endeavoured to give them in the simplest way, stating only the facts
without comment or reproach, but, I confess, also without praise. This procedure, dictated though it
was by my respect for the author of the «Revision of Echini», has had the unfortunate result that Pro-
fessor Agassiz has taken it as an offensive assumption of omniscience; for it is, of course, unreasonable
to suppose that the eminent author has been tempted to ascribe offensiveness to the mere demonstra-
tion of errors. Once again, I repeat my deep regret at this result and can only state that I tried my best
to avoid expressions which could be regarded as offensive. If I have been unsuccessful in this respect,
that may perhaps be partly ascribed to the circumstance that my work has been translated from Da-
nish, in which language it was written by me. Probably I may not be quite aware of the full significance
of all the English expressions used, so that more may sometimes have been said than I have meant
to say. — That the errors found out had to be corrected, I think, everybody will agree; in any case
I deem it the unconditional duty of every scientist to correct any erroneous statements he detects in
literature, to prevent their going on and on in future literature, causing error on error, which will
especially be the case with such statements occurring in the works of so famous an authority as
Professor Agassiz.

As for the work of my predecessors, when Professor Agassiz states that I practically reject the
whole of it, challenging it as worthless, because it is not based upon my methods for the solution

of all echinological problems,» I venture to think that he does not do me justice. Setting aside for

ECHINOIDEA. II. c

the moment the famous Report on the Challenger»-Echinoidea, surely Professor Agassiz has observed
that I regard, for instance, Wyville Thomson’s work on the «Poreupine»-Echinoidea as one of the
very best ever published on the recent forms, and that I have the most profound respect for Professor
Déderlein’s great work on the Cidarids, for the works of Professor Koehler, and for many others
whom I might name. That I do not agree with these authors in all points, is tar from implying a
slight appreciation of their work. As for challenging it «all as worthless because it is not based upon
my (his) methods for the solution of all Echinological problems», can it really be necessary for me to
express my conviction that any accurate and careful scientific research retains its worth, whatever
method has been used? — H it be found, however, that some structure like the pedicellariz is emi-
nently important for classification, then consequentiy no species of which the test only has been de-
scribed (however perfect that description may be) can be assigned to its definite position in the system
before that special structure has been made known. This logical conclusion is far from being that
implied by Professor Agassiz in the following remark (Op. cit. p. 19): «The height of absurdity is finally
reached when we are told that nothing can be said of the affimities of species of which pedicellariz
have not been examined (by him).» The word «nothing» as used by me, when taken in reasonable
connection with the context, is seen to mean that one cannot say with certainty to which genus such
a species belongs, e. g. Gontocidaris Déderlerni (Part I. p.28) or Asthenosoma longispinum (Ibid. p. 56),
and in such places I have added the words «with certainty.» That in any case my proviso applies
only to those families in which pedicellariz are of prominent systematic importance should be selt-
evident, but it may not be superfluous to state the fact explicitly here. For the rest Professor Agassiz
will probably himself admit that he was not justified in designating as an absurdity» my view that
species, whose most important systematic characters are unknown, cannot be assigned to their true
position, seeing that Professor Déderlein, whom both Agassiz and I honour with the highest ap-
preciation for his profound and elaborate works, now also puts aside as mccrt@ sedis such species as
Dorocidarts panamensis \. Ag. and Porocidaris Sharrert A. Ag. on account of their pedicellarize being
unknown, though they are otherwise very carefully described. (Echinoiden d. deutsch. Tiefsee-
Exped. p. 103.)

To turn to my personal remarks, which are characterised as being entirely out of place in a
scientific memoir», I have already stated that I avoided personalities as far as possible, and in the
whole of my work I can recall only two remarks to which Professor Agassiz might object on such
grounds. The study of the «Challenger» Echinoids preserved in the British Museum has shown ime that
Professor Agassiz has in several cases put one or more uotes of interrogation on the labels in the jars,
but has omitted to mention in the text that the identification was doubtiul. Without seeing the labels
no one would imagine that the published statements are really doubtful. They appear in the work
as certain facts and as such have been quoted by other authors with the consequent multiplication of
insecurely based conclusions. On this subject I observed: «this way of proceeding is very objectionable»,
and on p. 58: <it cannot be considered to be correct» to figure details of a specimen, referred with doubt
to some species, without any reservation under the name of that species. I do not think these remarks
out of place, where such facts are pointed out; but it is evidently these small reflections which have

caused the above-cited remark of Professor Agassiz, as well as the following: .Having stated in one

ECHINOIDEA. II.

part of the -Challenger»-Report that I considered some young specimens from Stations 184 and 219
as perhaps not belonging to A/sthenosoma) gracilis, 1 am corrected for not repeating this every time
[ mention A. gracilis/» (Op. cit. p. 84) and «Having made that statement (on 4. gracile) I am taken
to task by Dr. Mortensen for having made a statement in one place and not having repeated it some-
where else» (Op. cit. p. 105). — Again Professor Agassiz writes: «I have no doubt that in the mass of
material collected by the «Challenger» which passed through my hands I must have tailed to distin-
euish all the species. I was frequently in doubt as to the identification of certain specimens. That
doubt was usuaily indicated on the labels accompanying them, but Dr. Mortensen has no words to
express his horror at such a proceeding» (Op. cit. p. 85). In the place to which Professor Agassiz
refers here (Ingolf»-Ech. p. 57) I have said: «on the label was found a point of interrogation but of
this doubt nothing is said in the text and St. 272 is given without any reservation as a locality of
Phormosoma tenue». ‘That is all. — It is really too bad to credit me with such folly as to object to
the marking of one’s doubt on the labels when the identification of the specimens remains doubtful
— a, thing which every careful student of Echinoderms knows will occur now and then, especially
when the material is not in the best state of preservation. Of course I have never thought of re-
proaching Professor Agassiz for doing this, but I do think that, when the identification is doubtful,
some doubt should be indicated in giving the localities of the species. I hope Professor Agassiz
will pardon me if I venture on a few instances:

Asthenosoma gracile. On p.go («Challenger»-Echinoidea) is written: «small specimens of Asthe-
nosoma trom Stations 184 and 219 are referred to this species with considerable doubt»; on p. 91 are
named the following localities for A. gracile: Stations 219, 200, 184 and 169. In my opinion Stations
184 and 219 ought not to have been mentioned here at all, but, if they were to be mentioned, a note
of interrogation should certainly have been added. Again, it was incorrect to give Station 169 at
this place, as may be seen from «The Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» p. 108, where Professor Agassiz
writes: Among the specimens left at Cambridge, I had occasion to examine a specimen (4. gracile 7)
from Challenger» Station 169, and am able to give some details and figures of this specimen, plainly
showing that it is not an Asthenosoma but a new species of Phormosoma allied to Ph. hispidum. It
thus appears that the original identification of this specimen was also doubtful though no hint
of this was given in the text. This apparently trivial point is really one of much importance. By
giving as certain what really is uncertain or even, as Professor Agassiz now admits, quite erroneous,
the species A. gracile has been stated to occur at the Philippines, the Admiralty Islands, East of
Torres Strait and East of New Zealand, at a depth of 150—1q00 fathoms, whereas the species was at
that time really known only from the Philippines from a depth of 255 fathoms. (Such erroneous state-
inents are not excused even if it be found later that the species really occurs in such localities and
depths.) In the lists concluding the «Challenger» Report the bathymetrical distribution of this species
is said on p. 210 to be 150—255 fathoms, while on p. 268 are named Stations 169 (7oo fathoms), 184
(1400 fathoms), 219 (150 fathoms) without any reservation. Any student of geographical distribution
would naturally conclude from these statements that the bathymetrical distribution of .4. gracile has
been shown by Professor Agassiz in the «Challenger» Echinoidea to be from 150—1400 fathoms,

for it can searcely be expected of such students that they should study the descriptions of all the

ECHINOIDEA. II. 7}

species they are dealing with, on the chance of finding out that their localities were not given correctly
in a classical work written by the most celebrated authority.

In the preceding instance, it is true, careful perusal of the text might have raised a doubt in
the mind of the student; but under Phormosoma uranus there is nothing said in the text about doubtful
identification. On this case I have written (Part I. p.58): «In the description of © Phormosoma. uranius
Agassiz uses the expression the only specimen collected», but nevertheless puts down for it two
different localities, St. 6 and St. 78. This riddle I am able to solve. In (the) British Museum a quite
small Echinothurid is found from Chall. St. 78 determined by Agassiz as Ph. uwranus’?? On _ this
basis St. 78 is named without any reservation as a locality of «Ph.» wranus (comp. Calveria gracilis
and Echinosoma tenuc). With regard to this specimen, it is otherwise very badly preserved, and not a
single pedicellaria is kept. It 1s quite indeterminable, and consequently it cannot be considered to be
correct to figure details of this specimen under the name of Phormosoma uranus (without any inter-
rogation), as has been done by Agassiz (Chall. Ech. Pl. XVIII. c. fig. 12).» I think it cannot be denied
that my remark is quite true and very moderate and not «entirely out of place.» But I might have
added that by this incorrect mention of Station 78 the bathymetrical distribution of the species becomes
10o00—1525 fathoms, as, indeed, is definitely stated in the list on p. 311, whereas the species was then
really known only from a depth of 1525 fathoms. — Since I merely wish here to justify my «personal re-
marks» I will not in this place allude to further instances of this kind to be found in the Report on the
Challenger» Echinoidea, but I cannot pass from this subject without suggesting that the personal remarks
of Professor A gassiz, while not more moderate in their expression, are perhaps more out of place than mine.

To pass to another criticism by Professor Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini p. 18): «Dr. Morten-
sen harps on the fact that a great many species of Cidaris as well as other Echinoids have been proved
by him to belong to other genera than those to which they were referred by others, and thus he
constantly finds .a fine demonstration of the trustworthiness of the statements hitherto found in the
literature with regard to the occurrence and distribution of these animals!) Once given his genera,
the rest naturally follows, and we have nothing left of what has preceded.. This again might seem
very foolish in me, but the facts are really not quite those that might be inferred from this remark by
Professor Agassiz. What I actually wrote in this connection is as follows (Part I. p.171—172); Thus
I have established the fact that no less than 8 different species, of which, moreover, only one belongs
to the genus Dorocidaris, have in the literature been wrongly referred to 2). papillata, viz. Dorocidaris
nuda, Tretoctdaris annulata, spinosa, Cidaris affinis, baculosa and another Crdaris-species (Chall. St. 204),
Stereocidoris Lortoli and another Stercocidarts-species (Chall. St. 310) — a fine demonstration of the
trustworthiness of the statements hitherto found in the literature ete.» It will, I hope, be conceded that
this remark is not quite so foolish as would appear from Professor Agassiz presentation of it. The
main thing in systematic reports, lists of collections etc. is, so far as I can see, the right identification
of the species; whether the species be referred to one genus or another is thus far of secondary
importance and may be a matter of discussion among specialists. But the species are the units with
which science has to work. Wrong identifications of species must cause all later work founded on
these identifications to be erroneous and, indeed, lost labour. As I have found that 8 different species

had been wrongly mentioned in literature under the name of Dorocidaris papillata, | thought and still

8 ECHINOIDEA. II.
think my remark on the trustworthiness of such statements quite justified. If I had made that remark
on account of the species Dorocidaris papillata having been referred to different genera, the above
cited remark of Professor Agassiz would have been justified; but the case is really quite the reverse.
It may not be superfluous to state that in consequence of the erroneous determinations in the case
cited above of Dorocidaris papillata, this species is stated to occur at La Plata, the Philippines and
in the Red Sea, whereas it is really known only from the Northern Atlantic (as far south as St. Paul
rocks) and the Mediterranean. — A few other instances may be given:

Echinus norvegicus is stated (Chall. Echini p. 117) to have been taken by the «Challenger: at
Cape Cod (St. 46 and 47), off the West coast of Patagonia (St. 308) and off Japan (St. 232 and 235). The
alleged occurrence at Patagonia has proved of particular importance, causing this species to be ranged
among «bipolar» animals. Examination of the specimens in the British Museum (except those from
St. 235) gives the following result: The specimens from St. 46 and St. 47 are Echimus affinis, those
from Patagonia (St. 308) are partly «Achimus» magellanicus and partly another species of Lchzinzs,
closely allied to Ech. elegans. (My examination does not enable me to state with certainty to which
species the latter belong, but it shows clearly that they are not Echinus norvegicus (= acutus)), The
specimens from St. 232 are probably “chines fucidus, certainly not £. norvegicus and it seems a natural
inference that those from St. 235 are not /. worvegicus either. It thus follows that there is not a
single specimen of £. zorvegicus among all the specimens referred to that species in the «Challenger
Report. Consequently, the almost cosmopolitan distribution of this species and its bipolar nature both
of which have been deduced from the statements of that report can no longer be upheld.

For Zemnopleurus Hardwicku the following localities are given inthe «Challenger» Echinoidea

(p. 107): Kobi, Japan; Arafura Sea; off Yokohama and St. 192 (at the Kei Islands). I have examined

all the specimens in the British Museum and found them to be as follows: Kobi — 7Zzemnopleurus
loreumaticus; Arafura Sea — a very young specimen, probably 7: forewmaticus; St. 192 — a beautiful

specimen representing a new species of the very interesting genus Ofechinus, known hitherto only as
fossil one of the most interesting species taken by the «Challenger» '. — Thus it is only the speci-
mens from Yokohama which are really 7: /lardwicki7?.

The preceding instances are perhaps enough to justify the epithet «untrustworthy» as applied
to the older identifications made without microscopical examination of pedicellarize, spicules and other
parts. If further justification is demanded, numerous other instances of wrong identification will be
found pointed out in both parts of this work as well as in the work on the Siam-Echinoidea —
from the works of Professor Agassiz as well as from other, less famous authors.

Professor Agassiz finds it «childish to be constantly lamenting, as do Dr. Mortensen and Dr. de
Meijere, the loss of a specimen, if examined by the old method, necessary for the examination of the
test, and of the actinal and abactinal systems. Surely we cannot welcome a method which deliberately
saves a specimen in order to remain ignorant of its structure». (Op. cit. p. 19.) I fully agree with Professor
Agassiz that it is the duty of the describer of new or imperfectly known species to elucidate as fully

' This species was described by me as Ofechinus spectabilis in «The Danish Expedition to Siam 1899—1900. Zoolo-
gical Results. II. Echinoidea. I. Mém. Acad. Sc. Copenhagen. 7. Ser. I. 1904, p.g4. Also, the Pleurechinus variadilis Déderlein
proved to belong to the genus Opechinus. ‘

2 Op. cit. p. 62.

ECHINOIDEA., II. 9

as possible all the structures known to be of classificatory importance, and Professor Agassiz will, I hope,
recognize that I have done my duty in this respect. If I have characterised some new species mainly
by the structure of their pedicellaria, this is due to the fact that the specimens, being in the posses-
sion of foreign museums, were not at my full disposal. Moreover, I have established such new species
only when convinced of having made known sufficient characters for their certain recognition. It does,
however, seem to me that any method which enables one to determine the species of a rare specimen
without destroying or damaging it, is to be welcomed. Such a method is presented in many cases,
though certainly not in all, by the study of the pedicellariz; if by adopting this method we can pre-
serve some beautiful or rare specimen undamaged in a Museum, surely the destruction of such a speci-
men would be regrettable. Hence I have cited with approbation the remark of Stewart: that we
may «be enabled by the examination of even an ambulacral tube or pedicellaria ete. to determine a
species without denudation of portions of the corona, which is sometimes not desirable’. Apart from
this, even Professor Agassiz will agree, surely, that one may lament the loss of type-specimens
of several of the insufficiently described species of older authors without being stigmatised as childish. ;
but I have never lamented the loss of specimens due to the necessary examination of the test; indeed
I fail to see, why the removal of a few spines from the test should involve the loss of the specimen.
Possibly Professor Agassiz has mterpreted my occasional use of the word «destroy» to mean loss, though
my intention was to allude only to the destruction of the beautiful appearance of the specimens. —
For the rest, I may refer to the remarks of Professor D6derlein (Op. cit. p. 70) on this question, with
which I fully agree, «denn (auch) ich stehe auf dem Standpunkt, dass ich nur dann eine Art als genitigend
gekennzeichnet ansehe, wenn die alte Methode, die Beschreibung von Schale u.s.w. vereinigt ist mit
der neuen Methode der Beschreibung der Pedicellarien u. s. w.

I now come to the gravest accusation brought against me by Professor Agassiz, that of «gratui-
tous misrepresentation of facts». On p.25 (Op. cit.) Professor Agassiz says: «Dr. Mortensen names as
Dorocidaris micans specimens of a Cidaris which he received from the U.S. National Museum, Washing-
ton, labelled as Porocidaris Sharrert («Albatross» 1885. St. 2415) and also from the U.S. Fish Commis-
sion (<Albatross» 1885. St. 2345) under the same name. I beg to call Dr. Mortensen’s attention to the
fact that the publication of the «Blake» Kchini dates back to 1883, and that I was in no way con-
cerned in making the collection of the «Albatross» in 1885, or with the identification of the Echinoids
then collected. Dr. Mortensen’s statements («Ingolf Echinoidea. pp. 22, 23) in regard to Porocidaris
Sharrert are gratuitous misrepresentations of facts». — My remarks on Porocidaris Sharreri run thus
(loc. cit.): «Agassiz unfortunately gives no details as to the pedicellariz, and trom the figure (op. cit.
Pl. IIT) it cannot be decided whether it is a genuine Porocidaris. There seems to be no highly deve-
loped neck on the spines (in the text nothing is said of this feature); the pedicellariz might well look
like those of P. purpurata, but a close examination will be necessary for the decision. By the kindness
of Prof. Rathbun I have from (the) U. S. National Museum received a specimen determined as
P. Sharrert («Albatross» 1875. St. 2415); it proved to be the new species S¢ercocidaris ingolfiana de-
scribed hereafter; it has no relation to P.. Skarrevt. Further I have in (the) British Museum seen a speci-
men determined as P. Sharrert, from the U.S. Fish Commission («Albatross» 1885. St. 2345). Neither

seems this specimen to be identical with the real, figured P. Sharreri, at all events it does not to

The Ingolf-Expedition. [V. 2 2

ECHINOIDEA. II.

IO
any striking degree resemble the figure given by Agassiz. It is no Porocidaris». — Here follows a
description of the pedicellariz and spines of the specimen. — «Perhaps the specimen of Povocidaris

Sharreri mentioned by Agassiz (g. p. 13) «which was of a light greenish pink color when alive, the
spines white with a delicate brownish-pink base» is identical with the specimen described here — in
this case this specimen mentioned by Agassiz has certainly not been of the same species as the one
he figures; but this latter must, of course, keep the name of Skarreri, There can be no doubt that
the specimen described here is a new species: whether it is also to be regarded as a new genus, or
belongs to Dorocidaris, can only be decided, when the systematic significance of the spines has been
established. For the present it ought to be classed with Doroczdaris under the name of 2. micans n. sp.»
Now I really must ask, what is the misrepresentation of which I am accused in this passage? I have
not in the slightest way credited Professor Agassiz with the erroneous determination of the specimens
sent to me from the U. S. National Museum or seen by me in the British Museum! — and I am
unable to see what else can be the meaning of the accusation. Professor Agassiz also makes a similar
accusation in another case (p. 85): «Dr. Mortensen holds me responsible for the identification of speci-
mens of Ph/ormosoma) uranus and Ph. Peters sent by the Smithsonian (National Museum) to the
Copenhagen Museum and to Professor Koehler. I must repeat again that I know nothing of the speci-
meus collected by the «Albatross» in the Atlantic after the publication of the «Challenger» Echini.» —
I also must repeat again that I have not held or thought of holding Professor Agassiz responsible for the
identification of those specimens, and to this statement everyone must agree who will take the trouble
to read my remarks on this matter (Part I. p. 58—59). I beg, therefore, to suggest to Professor Agassiz
that he must have laboured under a misapprehension when accusing me of «gratuitous misrepresen-
tation of facts»; and I hope he will now do me the honour to recognize that, so far from there being
a gratuitous misrepresentation, there was no misrepresentation at all.

3efore entering on a discussion of the more detailed criticisms found in the work of Protessor
Agassiz I would on general grounds protest against the denunciation of my classification as «based
on a single character». On the contrary, every effort has been made to do justice to all available
characters. Researches on the classificatory value of the characters found in the different structures
led me to believe that the pedicellariz were of special importance, but I did not beforehand plan that
the classification should be based on those organs, as might be gathered from the following sentence
of Professor Agassiz: Dr. Mortensen planned what he modestly calls .a profound? and careful at-
tempt at penetrating into the mysteries of the relationship of the Echinoids» based upon a study of
the pedicellarize». (Op. cit. p. 106.) The continuation of the quotation from my work (p. 3) runs thus: —
and the plan was the simple, but clear one: to let litterature alone for the present, while the animals
were studied thoroughly. Everything had to be examined, that might in any way be supposed to show
systematic characters: the test, the spines, the tube-feet, the pedicellarie, the spicules, the sphzeridice
ete. Anyone who will take the trouble to look at my diagnoses of, for example, the genera of Achz-

[ may say that in the U. S. National Museum I found a specimen from the «Blake» 1878—79 (No. 151. Off
Nevis. 356 fathoms) named Porvoctdaris Sharreri, which is really Stereocidariy ingolfiana. ‘This specimen has evidently been
identified by Prof. Agassiz and thus proves that he has also made that error, of which I did not accuse him, but which
he so ardently rejects.

Perhaps the word «profound» has not quite the same meaning as the Danish word «grundig» used in this place;
at least, the Danish word does not sound immodest.

ECHINOIDEA. IIL. tI

nothuride and Echinometride, or better still, to read the chapter on the classification of the Diadem-
atids in my paper on the Siam-Echinoidea (pp. 40-56) will recognize that my classification is not
based on the pedicellarie alone. It is true that my classification of the Czdarid@ is almost exclusively
based upon the structure of the pedicellarie; but that is due to my inability to find other characters
which could be used with success. Any reader of my introductory remarks on the Family C/daridw
will recognize that I have not omitted to take other characters into consideration, while the conclusion
of that chapter is as follows (p. 31): «When in the diagnoses of genera given here other features than
pedicellarize and spicules have only been mentioned exceptionally the opinion of course is not that
these structures should be sufficient for definitive diagnoses. It has already been emphasized above,
and I shall here emphasize once more that all these structures must be thoroughly examined in order
to get the mutual relations of the forms established. That I have here only treated the pedicellariz
more thoroughly is a consequence of the fact that ueither my material nor my time has permitted
me to treat the other features more particularly. The system of the Cidarids cannot get its definitive
formulation, until all features have been examined in a greater number of species (or best in all
species). What is given here is a provisional classification, which can scarcely be correct throughout...
— Whilst I must thus decidedly protest against the accusation of having based my classification on a
single character, I beg to suggest to Professor Agassiz whether that would not suit the classification
of the «Lchinometride» and «Echinide» given in the «Revision of Echini». These «Families» are founded
exclusively on the number of pores in the ambulacral plates, all the genera with only three pairs of
pores being included in the family Zchznzd@, those with more than three pairs of pores in the family
Echinometride. And as for the impossible associations resulting from such artificial divisions according
to one character I might suggest to Professor Agassiz whether the placing of Hemipedina, Phymo-
soma, Echinus, Toxopneustes, Tripneustes and Evechinus (Heliocidarts) in one subfamily, 777plechinide,
as is done in the «Revision», does not deserve to be thus characterized.

Professor Agassiz speaks in a very depreciatory manner of the results of my classification, which
«culminate in such impossible associations that we are loath to follow his lead». It would have been
very interesting to hear some instances of these impossible associations, but unfortunately Professor
Agassiz confines his examples to a few Cidarids. It scarcely seems fair to condemn the whole of my
results on the evidence of a few debatable cases among the Czdarid@, the classification of which
family is expressly stated to be purely provisional. I should like to learn what are the impossible
associations in my classification of the Echinothuride, Echinometride and the Echinide, the more so,
since it was the greater naturalness of the associations resulting from my classification which were
to my mind a proof of its correctness. I will, however, leave it to others to compare my arrangement
of the forms included in, let us say, the genus Strongylocentrotus or in the Family Echinometride with
the arrangement given in the «Revision of Echini». And upon the whole I venture to believe that,
since Professor Déderlein has now accepted my classification of these groups in the main points, it
will be agreed, at least, that it cannot be so very unnatural; otherwise, so careful and judicious a natu-
ralist, with so profound a knowledge of the whole class, would certainly not have accepted it.

Regarding the use of pedicellariz in the «definition of systematical characters» of Echini Professor

Agassiz agrees that it may be desirable to employ <all the data possible from whatever source,

>

ECHINOIDEA. II.
which may throw any light on the subject». But «the study of pedicellarie has only added a new
factor differing in no way in its potentiality from those formerly in use», and there are several diffi-
culties to their use in classification. Like the other characters employed to distinguish the species
they vary with age. ©They form no exception and do not appear fully fledged in the embryos and
young specimens, in spite of Dr. Mortensen’s statement to the contrary; though he acknowledges that
there is in literature next to no more exact accounts of the development of the pedicellarize of Echi-
noids. Certainly before making such a sweeping use of the minute and often infinitesimal characters
supplied by pedicellariz for classification it would have been instructive to trace the development of
the several kinds of pedicellarize, and obtain some data regarding the extent and nature of the vari-
ation of pedicellarize during their growth. The only addition made by Dr. Mortensen to our know-
ledge of the development of pedicellariz is shown on Figs. 15, 24, 30 Pl. XII of the -Ingolf» Echinoidea,
giving three stages of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Phormosoma placenta. As long as we know so little
regarding the nature of the relations of the large and the small pedicellariz of the same kind to one
another it seem useless to speculate on the improbability ... of the arrangements» which must «take
place in the calcareous mass to make a small fully formed pedicellaria become a larger one». Every
student of Echini is fully aware of the immense amount of resorption and rearrangement constantly
taking place in the actinal and abactinal parts of the coronal plates in the interambulacral areas, and
in the actinal and abactinal systems — changes that are far greater than those referred to above can
be». — Further Professor Agassiz quotes my remark (p.9): «When no pronounced difference is found
between large and small pedicellariz, it may in fact be impossible to decide whether a certain speci-
men is to be regarded as a large or small form» and adds that «surely this acknowledgement that
the pedicellarize cannot be classified may throw some doubt on the statement that the pedicellaric
give absolutely excellent systematic characters» (p. 106-7).

In reply to these objections I cannot do better than refer to the remarks of Professor Déderlein
(Op. cit. p.67—72). In a way that could scarcely be better or clearer the whole question is discussed
there, and with full conviction I can subscribe to every word of it. Only a few remarks may be added.
I want to state explicitly that I quite agree with the remark that «the new factor (the pedicellariz)
differs in no way in its potentiality from those formerly in use»; it can never be said beforehand with
certainty whether the pedicellariae — or any other factor — are of primary importance in some group
or not, only a careful comparative study can show the relative value of the different structural cha-
racters. I have never stated that the classification has always to be based on the pedicellarize as the
most important factor; on the contrary, I am of opinion that where structural characters of some
Significance occur in the test, these are upon the whole of higher classificatory value than the cha-
racters in the pedicellariz. — The assertion that the pedicellariz do not appear fully fledged in the
embryos and young specimens «in spite of Dr. M.’s statement to the contrary» is quite unjustified. My
statement is not founded on the accounts thereof in literature but on my own fairly extensive studies;
and I would remark that I do not speak of the embryos in this connection but of the «newly meta-
morphosed Echinoid» (p. 7). All the different kinds of pedicellaria may not perhaps be developed in
the very young specimens; but those forms which are found do not differ essentially from those of

the grown specimens, except in size. Until it is proved by facts that the pedicellarize of the young

ECHINOIDEA. II. 12

specimens differ essentially ' in structure from those of the grown ones my positive statement, founded
on direct observations, that they are essentially alike must be accepted; by words alone it is not
refuted, even if it be the words of an authority so famous as Professor Agassiz.

What most astonishes me in Professor Agassiz’ objections against the systematic use of the
pedicellarize is his disbelief in my account of the development of the pedicellarie. The whole matter
seemed me so clear and its correctness beyond doubt that I did not find it necessary to figure the
different developmental stages of all the different pedicellarize in all the species. I might have filled
several plates with figures of developmental stages of pedicellariw. I have stated already in Part I.
p-6 that «I have found such stages of development in most of the species I have examined», and
this holds good also for those Echinoids, which I have studied since then. When Professor Agassiz
states that the only addition made by me to the knowledge of the development of pedicellariz is the
development of a triphyllous pedicellaria of Phormosoma placenta, he has probably overlooked this
remark as well as my figures of the developmental stages of a tridentate pedicellaria of Phormosoma
placenta. Indeed, in spite of Professor Agassiz’ doubt of the correctness of my view of the mode of
development of the pedicellarize, I do not find it necessary to give more figures thereof. I think no-
body will follow the famous author in the belief that small pedicellariz are gradually, through most
intricate processes, transformed into large ones, a belief which is sustained by no facts, against my
demonstration that the pedicellariz develop at once to their final size. The reabsorption and rearrange-
ment constantly taking place in the test can in no way be compared with the rearrangements that
would be necessary for transforming a small, fully formed pedicellaria to a larger one. The changes
in the test can ail easily be understood as caused by the processes of absorption in some places and
apposition in others, but by mere apposition a valve of a small tridentate pedicellaria with fully
formed, even more or less decorated edges, could never get the form of a valve of a large tridentate
pedicellaria. Even to suppose a process of intussusception would not help, the calcareous valves not
being of a plastic matter like a plant-cell, but much more like some kind of crystalline structure.

Regarding the relation of pedicellarice to the fossil forms Professor Agassiz remarks (p. 107):

Dr. Mortensen does not fail to perceive that pedicellariz are not likely to be of frequent use in the
determination of fossil forms, and for that reason condemns the classification of all fossil forms, and,
in passing, of the Irregular Echinoids». On this theme I have said (p.8), after mentioning the descrip-
tion of the pedicellarize of Pelanechinus corallinus by Groom and suggesting the possibility of also
finding pedicellarize in well preserved specimens of other fossil Echinoids: «Of course, however, it will
always be a rare thing — generally we have here to be content with the tests (and the spines). These
structures also often give excellent characters, but they are far from being always reliable. The former
great incertainty in the determination of the recent forms of regular Echinoids (and | think it is not
much better with regard to the irregular ones) may be taken to imply that there cannot be any great
certainty in the classification of the fossil forms either». — It seems to me that these few remarks are
indeed very moderate and can not be said to «condemm the classification of all fossil forms»; on the
other hand, the fact that in all the families treated in Part I the pedicellaria are of so great

«In Echinus the globiferous pedicellarie appear to have the blade generally somewhat more open in young speci-

mens than in the grown ones, as is pointed out by Déderlein. (Op. cit. p. 211.)

14 ECHINOIDEA. II.

classificatory value, naturally led me to suppose that the same would generally be the case in all
Echinoidea. Later studies on other families of the Echinoids (Dzadematide, Temnopleuride, the Irregu-
lar Echini) have shown that these structures are not always of so high a value in classification, and in
such groups the possibility of determination and classification of the fossil forms is, of course, more
favourable than in those groups, where the pedicellariz are of more importance, as in Echimide, Toxo-
pneustide, Echinometride and, partly, Cidaride. In these groups it is certainly not too much to say
that «there cannot be any great certainty in the classification of the fossil forms». — Regarding the
classification of the Irregular Echinoidea I have not said a word on that subject in Part I, and ac-
cordingly I have not condemned» it either in passing or in a more thorough way. I have only sug-
gested that there would prove to be some uncertainty in the determinations of these forms, made with-
out the use of the microscopic characters afforded by pedicellariz ete. That I was quite right in that
suggestion is, I think, sufficiently proved in this second Part of my work.

To turn now to the cases among the C7daride pointed out by Professor Agassiz as especially

unfortunate results of my classificatory attempts. Such a case is the uniting of Czdaris metularia and

verlicillata in one genus — «two species which are more readily distinguished by the characters of the
spines and tests than any other species of the family». That Crdarzs baculosa is added to the same

genus is also held very unfortunate. It is true that Crdaris verticillata and metularia are very readily
distinguished by their spines as well as by their tests; the differences found in the spines, however,
could not convince me of the absurdity of uniting them in one genus, since I was unabie to see very
reliable generic characters in the structures of the spines — and certainly the differences between the
spines of C. verticillata and metularia are not more important than are those between C. verticillata and
Phyllacanthus imperialis, which are united in one genus in the «Revision of Echini». As for the differ-
ences in the structure of the test I might well have ascribed to them more systematic importance, if I
had been fortunate enough to have had a specimen of this C. verticillata at my disposal and had been able
to make a direct comparison. (It was upon the whole the lack of sufficient material for a comparative
study of the tests of the Cidarids which made me unable to judge of the real value of these structures
for the distinction of the genera.) Being then constrained to class the species after the structure of the
pedicellariz I could not get any other result than that these two species had «to be regarded as not
too closely allied species of the same genus» (p. 15), and since Professor Déderlein (Op. cit. p. ror)
after his very elaborate studies on the tests, the pedicellariz and spines of the Cidarids has now come
to the result that C. vertillata, baculosa and metularia have to be placed in the same genus, only in
different subgenera, I cannot think my result so very unnatural.
That Crdaris affinis is separated from Dorocidaris papillata, with which latter species it was
hitherto made synonymous, and even placed in another genus, Professor Agassiz finds erroneous.
There is nothing in the figures of the pedicellariz given by Mortensen to warrant such a transposi-
tion (p. 22). As evidence thereof the figures of pedicellarize of these two species given on Pl. IX are
cited. That the figures of the tridentate pedicellarize as well as those of the small globiferous pedicel-
lariae do not show so very important differences I willingly agree, but I have not used these differences
as distinguishing characters of the genera Dorocidaris and Cidaris. The main difference between

the two genera I find in the large globiferous pedicellarize; of the figures given thereof Professor

ECHINOIDEA. II. =

Agassiz compares 3, 5 and 5, 9, whereas the most characteristic of them, fig. 22, is not mentioned.
If Profesor Agassiz had compared the figure 3 with fig. 9, and fig. 5 with fig. 22, as is the only
natural way to compare them, he would probably have agreed with my placing these species in two
different genera. Since Professor Déderlein now agrees with me in referring these two species to two
different genera, I think there can scarcely be any more doubt of the correctness of that view. On
the other hand my genus Pefalocidaris, established for Gonvocidaris florigera, seems, indeed, untenable,
as pointed out by Doderlein (p. 96). The remarks by Agassiz on this genus (p. 22) are singularly
unfortunate. All the figures to which reference is made there are of 7re/ocidaris. The diagnosis of the
genus (p. 28) and a comparison of the figure of a large globiferous pedicellaria (Pl. X. 27) with that
of Gontocid. tubaria (Pl. X. 20) would have shown that the genus was not based on the small opening
of the point of these pedicellarize but on the elongated form of the blade.

The association of Dorocidaris bracteata A. Ag. with Stephanocidaris bispinosa may be wrong,
but having no specimen of the former at my disposal I am unable to say anything definite; since
Professor Dé6derlein has now completely altered the position of S/ephanocidaris bispinosa by finding
its large globiferous pedicellarize, of the form without end-tooth typical of the genus Crvdarites Lamarck
(Cidarts Klein in Part I of this work), the form taken by me to be the large globiferous pedicellariz
being, in fact, the small form, it is probable that I have likewise only seen the small form of globiferous
pedicellarize in Doroc. bracteata. But as long as we do not know the large globiferous pedicellariz of
this species it 1s impossible to say with certainty to which genus it belongs. The characteristic, that
the abactinal system of Stephanocidaris bispinosa is somewhat more flexible than in other Cidarids,
does not seem to me so extremely important as Agassiz holds it, since he finds it ‘so entirely unique
among the Cidaridze that there is no excuse for associating with it a species with the abactinal system
of the species of Dorocrdaris» (p. 23). On comparing vertical sections of tests of S/ephanocidaris bispinosa
and Dorocidaris papillata I find that not only the apical svstem but the whole test is distinctly thinner
in the former. Certainly, I cannot consider this difference a very important character. Professor Déder-
lein also evidently holds this character to be only of secondary importance, since he unites Czdaris
baculosa and verticillata with Stephanoc. bispinosa in the same subgenus. (Op. cit. p. 101.)

Professor Agassiz evidently finds it too meaningless to deserve a refutation, when on account
of a general resemblance I ventured to suppose that Dorocidaris panamensts had the same kind of
globiferous pedicellariz as Czdaris affinis. Wi he had found it worth while examining these structures
he would have found that my suggestion was quite right!, and he would have avoided the erroneous
statement that this species is «the Pacific representative of 1. papillata

For my suggestion that « Gonocidaris» canaliculata might be a Stercocidaris Professor Agassiz
can see no reason, especially since it is quite contrary to my principles to refer living species to
genera established for fossil species. ©To Mortensen affinities as usually recognized by most writers
on Kchini have no interest and have no value when not based on the pedicellarize» (p. 32). The cases
where I do refer living species to genera based on fossil species seem to me to show that I also

t I have had occasion to examine specimens of this species, identified by Professor Agassiz himself, in the U. S.
National Museum. The only difference of some importance between the pedicellariz of this species and those of C. a/finis is
that no limb of projecting rods is found on the stalk of the large globiferous pedicellaria — at least not on the few I
have examined. They occur very sparingly; I have only found them in two of the nine specimens examined by me in the
U. S. National Museum.

16 ECHINOIDEA. IU.

recognize the value of affinities not based on the pedicellarize, since, of course, only the accordance
in the structural characters of the test could induce me to accept such genera. To be sure, the S¢erco-
cidaris canaliculata is not a very typical species of that genus, but the pedicellariz are of the struc-
ture peculiar to that genus, and I did not find sufficient charaters in the structure of the test for
founding a separate genus on it. Now, Professor Agassiz has established the genus Centrocidaris
for this species and the species « Gonzocidaris» Déderleint A. Ag., the only character of the genus being
the broad bare space in the ambulacral and interambulacral areas. This character is certainly a very
insufficient one for founding a genus on it, the more so as it is rather variable in canalicalata. Pro-
fessor Déderlein quite agrees with me that the species canaliculata has to be reterred to Stereo-
cidaris*; he rejects the genus Centrocidaris, and | think, likewise, that this genus cannot be maintained
as understood by Professor Agassiz. Perhaps it can be maintained for the species C. Déderleii,
which had to be left incertae sedis by Professor Déderlein, in spite of the careful description of the
test given by Professor Agassiz mm the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini.

Professor Agassiz further finds it impossible to conceive the ground for my separating /oro-
cidaris elegans as another genus, //zstocidaris, from Porocidarts purpurata, «anless it be that the cha-
racters of a single valve of a small globiferous pedicellaria, which he (I) figure(s) as perhaps belonging
to that species’, is sufficiently characteristic for such a generic separation» (p. 24). It seems to me to
be very easily seen from my remarks on Forocidaris (p.21—22) and the diagnoses of the genera Hsto-
cidarts and Porocidaris (p. 30), that I regard the differences in the tridentate pedicellariz as the main
character: two-valved in Porocidaris, three-valved in Histocidaris; the depressions in the scrobicular areas
and the long neck of the radioles are also pointed out as characteristic of Porocidaris (p. 21) — un-
fortunately, the two latter characters have not been mentioned in the diagnosis. I do not see that
Professor Agassiz has in the least weakened these grounds for distinguishing //stoczdaris trom Poro-
cidaris; Professor Déderlein also accepts the genus ///sfocrdaris, though he finds that the two
species -einander nicht allzufern stehen» (p. 98). I agree that it is too much to say that //. elegans «has
no relation with P. purpurata» (p. 22), but I think the genus //sfocidaris has to be maintained. — To
this genus will have to be referred «Porocidaris» Cobost A. Ag., of which I have examined an authentic
specimen in the U. S. National Museum, whereas «/orocidaris» Miller’ A. Ag., which I had likewise
the opportunity of examining there, is a Stereocidaris, probably nearly related to Stereocidaris japonica
Déderlein. As regards Porocidaris Sharrer’ it still remains uncertain, whether it is a Porocidaris or a
/tistocidaris; it is true that I have seen the type-specimen in the Museum of Comparative Zoology
at Harvard College, but since Professor Agassiz thought it right to forbid me to make any studies
at the Museum, I could only see it like any ordinary visitor, and unfortunately it was placed so high
that I could not see the pedicellariz. From the lack of a long neck on the spines and of the de-
pressions in the scrobicular areas I would conclude that it belongs to the genus //s¢ocidaris. What I
have said of the species Dorocidaris micans, based on specimens wrongly referred to Porocidaris Shar-
vert, is right. I hope to be able soon to give a more detailed description of this species. On the
other hand, I must agree that Professor Agassiz is right when,reproaching me with inconsistency in

I shall have to treat this species and the questions associated therewith more thoroughly in the Reports on the
Eehini of the German and the Swedish South-Polar Expeditions.

On p.173 I have stated that this form of globiferous pedicellarize does not really belong to Hesfoc. efegans.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 17

the use (or rejection) of generic names first used for fossil forms, since I retain the names Arbacina,
Porocidaris and Stercocidaris. As regards Stercocidaris, 1 think it quite right to maintain that name,
the structure of the test being so characteristic that it seems beyond doubt that the recent and fossil
species belong to the same genus. (Comp. Déderlein. Op. cit. p.95.) Regarding Porocrdaris, 1 find it
rather doubtful, indeed, whether it really belongs to the same genus as the fossil type, and perhaps
it would be better to create a new genus for it; for the present, however, I will leave that undecided.
It was probably wrong to accept the name Arbacina — even if the species /orbesianus had not
proved to be a Prionechinus. On the other hand, it was probably unnecessary to revive the name
Cenopedina — but upon the whole I must maintain that in those families, where the pedicellarize are of
great systematic importance, it is generally quite impossible to say with certainty to which genus,
or in several cases even to which family, a species belongs of which only the test is known, as is
generally the case with the fossil forms. To my remark on this subject (Part I. p.85) that «identical
structure of the test is no proof of near relationship», Professor Agassiz objects (p. 107) that «we are
perfectly justified in retorting that similarity of the pedicellarize is no proof of relationship as shown
by the structure of the test, and we are not warranted in classifying together forms which agree only
in the structure of the pedicellariz, and differ in the structure of the test». I quite agree with this
and have never thought of maintaining that the structural differences found in the tests of the differ-
ent forms were of no systematic value, and I think that Agassiz will be unable to point out any
case of my having associated forms differing essentially in the structure of the test on account of their
pedicellariz being alike in structure, except — perhaps — among the Cidarids, where my material did
not allow me to study sufficiently the differences in the structure of the test. Professor Agassiz is
not at all entitled to say that I «recognize(s) only such affinities as are indicated by the structure of the
pedicellarize. Affinities indicated by other structural features have little or no interest for him, or are
entirely erroneous. It will be a great saving hereafter if illustrations of Echini are limited, as he would
have us limit them, to figures of pedicellaria».— I need again only refer to the chapter on the classi-
fication of the Diadematids in my work on the Siam-Echinoidea for refutation of this assertion, and as
regards the illustrations a mere glance at my work will show that I have figured the species treated
there as carefully as possible. I wish Professor Agassiz had done so with all the species described by
him — that would have saved his fellow-workers a great deal of trouble; I may remind the eminent
author of such species as Echinus Walitsi, Doroctdaris Bartletti, Hemiaster Mentzt. On the other hand,
I would maintain that for a preliminary description of some species, figures of the pedicellarize may be
much more valuable than a figure of the whole animal, on which none of the more important char-
acters can be seen. And it may also be suggested that not everybody perhaps can afford the expense
of so copious illustration as that given in Professor Agassiz’ last magnificent work.

Against the results of my studies on the Echinothuride Professor Agassiz has made a great
many objections, only very few of which, however, I can acknowledge as maintainable. I shall answer
them one by one in the order in which they are set forth.

Firstly, Professor Agassiz objects to the arrangement of the figures of pedicellarie in my plates;
he finds it almost impossible to compare the figures of pedicellarie of the different species «without
a guide or key to their arrangement» (p. 81). It is, indeed, rather a difficult question how to arrange

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2.

<)

18 ECHINOIDEA. II.

the figures on the plates in the best way. The simplest way is obviously to put together all the figures
of the same species, but a comparison of the figures of the different species is not made easier in
that way and the general appearance of the plates cannot then be taken into account. The latter fact,
to be sure, has no real scientific value, but I willingly confess that I like to have the figures arranged
with some regard to the appearance of the plates. It does not seem to me that the arrangement in my
plates is so quite hopeless for comparing the figures of the different species. All the figures of pedicel-
larize of the Echinothurids are put together on three successive plates, the first of them including all
the figures of triphyllous pedicellarize; and the numbering of the figures is constantly in transverse series
from the left to the right, so that the figures are at least easily found out, in any case much more easily
than in some of Professor Agassiz’ plates, e. g. in «Revision of Echini»: Pl. VI, XXIV—XXVI, XXXVIII
and «Challenger» Echinoidea: Pl. XXX VIII—XLV, where the numbering and arrangement of the figures
seem without any plan whatever. Regarding the quality of my figures I am sorry to say that I am
far from satisfied with several of them, and I likewise must agree that it might have been better to
give the direct enlargement of the figures instead of the number of the oculars and objectives. But,
on the other hand, the size of the pedicellariz has upon the whole no such systematic importance that
exact measurements are necessary, since generally they vary very much in size.

In dwelling upon the many points of relationship between Phormosoma and Asthenosoma».,
says Professor Agassiz (p. 82), «I drew attention to the difficulties of describing the species of these
genera owing to the changes due to growth. On the strength of this remark Dr. Mortensen assumes
that I have stated that the two genera cannot be distinguished, and proceeds to ignore all that has
been said of the different species of Echinothuriz relating to the actinal and abactinal systems and
the spines, because he thinks the Echinothurids are not adapted for examination in the dry state. But
he claims to give a perfect classification based, first, upon the characters of the spines, as if his pre-
decessors had not mentioned them in any way; next upon pedicellariz, tube feet, pores and spicules,
the last of which he has previously informed us were of no systematic value! Having stated that the
genera Phormosoma and Asthenosoma cannot be distinguished, he then establishes a number of new
genera based wholly upon the structure of the triphyllous and tridentate pedicellariz. The latter show

a great variety of forms, and are of great systematic importance»; while the former have little system-
atic importance in Echinidee, they are considered by Dr. Mortensen of value for the determination of
the Echinothuriz.

That the genera Phormosoma and Asthenosoma as understood by Agassiz cannot really be
distinguished, it seems to me superfluous to again demonstrate; Agassiz has not given any further
distinctive characters of the two «genera», and both de Meijere and Déderlein agree with me in
the limitation given thereof in Part I of this work. As for the «changes due to growth», I might re-
mark that such changes are evidently upon the whole much smaller than Professor Agassiz thinks,
since in several cases these «changes» are due to the specimens belonging to different species or even
different genera. (See e. g. «Phormosoma» wranus and Petersii Part I. p. 58—s9.) For the purpose of
showing such changes, it seems to me highly important that the identification of the differently sized
specimens be made as certain as possible by using all characters available for specific identification; a
record of the changes undergone by a species during growth is worth lessthan nothing when the speci-

mens upon which the changes are described do not belong to the same species or even the same genus.

ECHINOIDEA. II. Ig

That I «ignore all that has been said of the different species of Echinothuriz relating to
the actinal and abactinal systems and the spines, because I (he) think(s) the Echinothuride are not
adapted for examination in the dry state» needs no special refutation. I have found no reason to
repeat all the facts made known by the different authors on Echinothuride, as in general I do not
think it necessary to repeat all that has previously been made known each time some additional
information is given. But I am sure that I have not ignored what was previously known of the
Echinothuride when giving the new classification resulting from my predecessors’ and my own re-
searches. That «the Echinothuride are not adapted for examination in the dry state» I have not said.
On the contrary I have said «that the arrangement of the plates is generally only to be seen in dried
specimens». «But», I continue «the Echinothurids are only very little adapted for preservation in
dried state, and if the material in hand be slight one does not like to destroy it for the sake of
determination» (p. 43). This remark seems to me incontestable.

I do not at all «claim to give a perfect classification» of the Lechinothuride. On the contrary
I have said (p. 65): «As has been done above in the Cidarids I shall also here expressly state that I
do not regard the generic diagnoses given here as complete. As well the structure of the test as the
inner anatomy stands in need of an exact examination in several of the genera. I must, however,
regard all the genera established here as good ones, and also the limitation of the old genera Phormo-
soma and Asthenosoma is no doubt correct. Only the genera Ar@osoma and Hygrosoma are perhaps still
taken in too wide a sense ..... » That the new genera established by me are «based wholly upon the
structure of the triphyllous and tridentate pedicellariz» is in so striking contest with the statement
given by Professor Agassiz himself a few lines above that my classification is based «first upon the
characters of the spines, as if his predecessors had not mentioned them in any way ..... ; next upon
pedicellarize, tube feet, pores and spicules», that I need say no more about it. That my predecessors
have both mentioned and described the spines more or less accurately, I have never denied or thought
of concealing; but it is one thing to describe them, another to use them properly for systematic pur-
poses, and I do not see that Professor Agassiz has made such use of the spines. Even now,
after my pointing out the importance of the differences found in the structure of the primary actinal
spines (ending in a thick fleshy sack in Phormosoma, in a curious white, naked hoof in the other
genera — Kamptosoma still remaining unknown in this respect), he does not recognize this fact, though
without giving any reason for not doing so, only referring to a statement in the «Challenger»-Echi-
noidea (p. ror): «The presence of sheathed spines in two species of Phormosoma shows that this cha-
racter, which at first seems to separate so strikingly from the rest of the group Asthenosoma grubiu,
is evidently one of little value, and which may be more or less developed in specimens of the same
species in the same state of growth». To this statement I remarked (Part I. p. 48): the facts here put
together by Agassiz are quite different: in A. grwéde7 it is the spines on the abactinal side that are
wrapped by a bag of skin, and the spine itself is of the common structure, a perforate tube ending
in a fine point; in Pz. placenta and the species allied to it, it is the primary spines on the actinal
side that are clavately widened in the point and wrapped by a thick bag of skin. These spines must,
of course, be compared with the primary spines on the actinal side of the other species, but then we
find a marked difference, these spines of the other species not being covered with skin — as far as is

known — but ending in a larger or smaller hoof, distinctly marked off from the spine itself». Pro-

re

ECHINOIDEA. II.

fessor Agassiz remarks on this criticism: «I have stated that I thought this character of no great
systematic importance. Dr. Mortensen is of contrary opinion» (p. 101); I confess my inability to under-
stand how a statement, shown to be erroneous, can be made good again by simply reiterating it, even
if this is done by so eminent an authority as Professor Agassiz.

The statement that I use the spicules in the classification of the Echinothurids, after having

previously informed us» that they «are of no systematic value» must be due to some error. So far
as I know I have never stated that the spicules are of no systematic value. On p. 45 I have said
that .the spicules are almost always rather large, irregular, fenestrated plates situated more or less
distinctly in 3—4 longitudinal series. In A. varitwm, Grubet, heteractis and urens they are very slightly
developed, only small, branched calcareous pieces, rarely with a hole». In the following lines I say of
the sphzeridize that they «show no differences so great that they can be of any systematic importance».
Perhaps it is this remark which Professor Agassiz through some lapsus has referred to the spicules.

The difference between the genera Av@osoma and Calveria is, I agree, not so very important,
and since the name Ca/veria cannot be used, as pointed out by Professor Agassiz and most carefully
argued by Dr. F. A. Bather', it may, perhaps, be preferable to unite C. hystrix with the genus
Areosoma,; to the genus Asthenosoma it cannot be referred. The species 4. varzwm and Graber I have
never referred to the genus Calverza, as stated by Agassiz (p. 84). :

Professor Agassiz claims to have figured an ophicephalous pedicellaria of «Phormosoma» lu-
culentum, viz. on Pl. XLIV. fig. 27 of the «Challenger»-Echinoidea. I may remark on this account that
he only mentions it in the explanation of the plates and under the name «small short-headed, short-stemmed
pedicellaria»; further I have by no means overlooked that figure, but mention it on p. 60 and p. 176,
suggesting that it may represent an ophicephalous pedicellaria, but stating that I have myself been
unable to find any similar form of pedicellaria in this species. I think Professor Déderlein is right
in supposing (Op. cit. p. 121) that it does not really belong to this species. When Professor Agassiz
takes the peculiar modified form of tridentate (or perhaps ophicephalous) pedicellarize figured by me
on Pl. XIII. Fig. 16 to be the same as that which he has figured in Pl. XLIV. 25—26 («Challenger»-
Echinoidea), he is quite right. I have stated that carefully on p. 60 and have given no figures of the
valves, finding that his figures «give a good representation of the single valve».

That figures of Phormosoma placenta are given in the «Blake»-Echini and of Phormosoma
bursarium in the «Challenger»-Echini does not eliminate the fact, that Professor Agassiz in describing
the latter species only points out the differences from the distantly related «Phormosoma» luculentum
but not the characters distinguishing it from the very closely related P#. placenta. Neither are such
characters pointed out under Phormosoma placenta in the «Blake»-Echinoidea. That there was some
reason for pointing out such differences appears also from the fact that Professor Déderlein is now
inclined to regard Ph. bursaritwm as only a synonym of Ph. placenta (Op. cit. p. 127).

Further, Professor Agassiz says (p. 85): «Dr. Mortensen thinks that I am wholly mistaken in
suggesting any affinity between A. pellucidum and A. coriaceum and A. tesselatum, because? he has
suggested a new genus, Hoplosoma, for A. pellucidum, based entirely upon the structure of the pedi-

» The Echinoderm name Ca/veria hystrix. Ann. Nat. Hist. 7. Ser. XVII. 1906. p. 249.
2 The Italics are mine.

ECHINOIDEA. Il. 21

cellarize; they are certainly very peculiar, but may be embryonic conditions of unknown pedicellaria
similar to those he figures for P%. placenta. As for his remarks on Phormosoma tenue, | would suggest
to Dr. Mortensen that the Report on the «Challenger»-Echini was issued in 1881, and that his memoir
was published in 1903; he can scarcely expect genera proposed in 1903 to have received any recogni-
tion in 1881

It is possible that the genus Hapalosoma (not Hoplosoma) cannot be maintained, in which case
the only species, Aed/ucidwm, would have to be referred to the genus Av@osoma, since its peculiar glo-
biferous pedicellariz are evidently only a special development of the «tetradactylous» pedicellariz of
the latter genus, as shown by Dr. de Meijere. That they are not embryonic conditions of unknown
pedicellarize is certain; otherwise, fully developed forms would also have been found among the not
very few specimens seen by me, and Dr. de Meijere especially would have found them in the very
rich material he has had for study. Whether now the genus //apalosoma las to be maintained (as I
think it has) or not, I certainly did not deny the close affinity of A. pellucidum with A. cortacewm
and /esselatum because I suggested a separate genus for the former, but, on the contrary, I suggested
a new genus for it, because I found it too distantly related to 4. coriacewm and tesselatum to reter
it to the same genus with these species. The use of the word «because» in this place is thus not quite
fair, and the same holds good in other instances, thus for example when it is said on the same page
as the above: «<I have nothing to say regarding Dr. Mortensen’s sneers at descriptions of pedicellarie,
because they do not fit with his classification». My criticism of the description of the pedicellariz of
Phormosoma tenue (as well as of other species) given by Professor Agassiz is certainly sufficiently
justified by the character of that description, as will be agreed, I imagine, by anybody who will take
the trouble to read my remarks on that subject (Part I. p. 57).

That Professor Agassiz could not in 1881 recognize the genera proposed by me in 1903 is
self-evident. But, nevertheless, I think the remark to which Agassiz refers here quite justified
(Part I. p.55). After quoting from the «Challenger»-Echini p. 87 as follows: «In the only species of
the group of which the Challenger collected a complete series (Phormosoma tenuc) there was little
difficulty in recognizing the young as belonging to the adult» I continue: «We could scarcely wish
to find a more pregnant proof of the difficulty or impossibility of determining Echinids without taking
the pedicellariz into consideration... With regard to the excellent long series of «Phormosoma» tenue,
there are among the specimens referred to this species by Agassiz at all events two different genera,
but no genuine Phormosoma!» Professor Agassiz has now established a new species of the genus
Kamptosoma, K. indistinctum A. Ag, on a specimen from the «Challenger» St. 272, referred to «Phor-
mosoma» tenue (p. 110). I venture to imagine that a more careful examination might have made it
possible to recognize this specimen as belonging to a separate genus already even in 1881; of course,
it would at that time have been impossible to know the name to be proposed by me later on, but
the genus really did exist already at that time. It is also worth noticing that this genus is sufficiently
characterized by its peculiar ambulacral structure alone, without regarding the pedicellarize and spines.

Professor Agassiz does not deny himself the pleasure of correcting me when mentioning
«Phormosoma» asterias as «the last of the Echinothurids described from the «Challenger» » (p. 86); Iam

sorry to have to call his attention to the fact that, since I had already treated all the other species,

22 ECHINOIDEA. II.

including the last mentioned species Phormosoma rigidum, the Ph. asterias was necessarily the last of
them — I did not say the «last named». That the characters on which the genus Kamptosoma was
founded appear to Professor Agassiz «most trivial», is, of course, a matter of slight importance, since
he accepts the genus. In my opinion the structure of the ambulacra in this genus (which character is
mentioned in the diagnosis besides the characters of spines and pedicellariz) is a highly interesting
feature, and even Professor Agassiz himself later on in the description of Aamfptosoma indistinctum
does not evidently think this feature so very trivial. — As regards the species zdzstinctum, it is to
be regretted that Professor Agassiz does not say a word about the characters by which it is disting-
uished from the species asferzas. On p.177 (Part I) I stated that after a renewed examination of the
specimens from St. 272 I thought it unjustifiable to separate them from A’ asterzas as a new species;
it might not have been quite inappropriate therefore to point out the characters on which the new
species was established. Until these specific characters are made known I must regard A’ zdistinctum
as synonymous with A. asterias.

To enter on a renewed discussion of the genus //ygrosoma and its delimitation from Phormo-
soma, on account of Professor Agassiz’ remarks on that subject (p. 85—86), I deem unnecessary, since
Professor Déderlein has accepted my view thereon and given most careful and elaborate descriptions
of both genera, to which I may simply refer. (Op. cit p. 125, 136.)

After describing the changes in the apical system due to age in Phormosoma hispidum Professor
Agassiz says (p. 95): «It is this extraordinary change in the anal system which I had observed in
the abactinal parts of the test, which has prompted Dr. Mortensen to credit me with the most extra-
ordinary ignorance of the rudimentary embryological data, many of which I was the first to discover.
That this remarkable intercalation exists there is not the least doubt, and it naturally suggests in old
specimens a flow of the anal plates into the interambulacrum, similar to the flow of the ambulacral
plates of the corona into the buccal plates of the actinal system». — I must answer to this statement
that I have not at all credited Professor Agassiz with any ignorance of embryological facts, but only
criticised his statements in the «Blake»-Echinoidea (p. 32) on the development of the young Phormosoma
placenta, and I certainly think my criticism completely justified (Part I. p.174—175). Professor Agassiz
himself now agrees (p.96) that his statement there of the formation of the buccal plates was erroneous,
viz. that they are «separated from the coronal plates, and are developed, as I (Agassiz) have shown
in the same manner as the imbricating plates of the Cidaride, independently of the coronal plates;
new plates forming on the distal surface of the actinostome, which are intercalated between the old
plates and the coronal plates». That Professor Agassiz has himself found out, before my criticism
had appeared, that this was a mistake, does not make this part of my criticism unjustified. I might
have added that the conclusion necessarily derived from the statement quoted, that in the Cidaridz
also the buccal plates should originate in this way, is not less erroneous, as Professor Agassiz will
certainly also agree.

Concerning the formation of the interambulacral plates, Professor Agassiz continues with the
following statement (loc. cit.): «On the abactinal system, on the contrary, while the plates of the genital
ring are well defined and seem to be distinctly separated from the coronal plates, yet new interam-
bulacral plates are not added independently, as in the ambulacral system, and as in the interambulacral

system of other young Echinoids where the genital ring remains permanently closed. The new inter-

ECHINOIDEA., II.

iS}

Ww

ambulacral plates are found to be pushing out from the plates of the anal system on each side of the
genital plates. As the ocular and genital plates of the genital ring become separated, with increasing
size, the additional anal plates forming in the intervening spaces are pushed out, and become a part
of the abactinal portion of the interambulacral area». To this I remarked (p. 175): «This statement is
completely incorrect. The interambulacral plates are formed in Pk. placenta as in other Echinids, not
by the anal plates. The «genital ring», at all events, is closed, until the animal has reached a size of
17™™ in diameter, and so far accordingly the interambulacral plates must necessarily be formed in the
common way, as may also easily be substantiated. In a specimen of a diameter of 30% a couple of
ocular and genital plates are still joining, and here the case is quite the same. That a new mode of
formation of the interambulacral plates, otherwise quite unknown among the Echinids, should then
suddenly occur, is very improbable — and, above all, Agassiz has not at all proved it; all that may
be seen in the larger specimens, is that the small anal plates directly adjoin the uppermost interam-
bulacral plates». — I am quite unable to find in this criticism any accusation of ignorance of em-
bryological facts, and I am unable to see, likewise, that 1 am mistaken in my criticism. So far
as I can understand the meaning of the above passage quoted from the «Blake»-Echini, Professor
Agassiz maintains here that the anal plates are directly developed into interambulacral plates. That
mode of development would be in direct opposition to the generally accepted views on the homology
of the Echinoid-skeleton, which hold that the interambulacral plates and the anal plates are of very
different morphological value. A transformation of the anal plates into interambulacral plates is thus
very improbable for morphological reasons, further also, on account of the younger specimens showing the
normal condition, and finally, I must repeat that Professor Agassiz has not shown it to be the case.
On examining Mr. Westergren’s admirable figures of the abactinal system of «Phormosoma» /ispi-
dum on Pl. 39 or of «Asthenosoma» coriaceum on Pl. 52. fig. 1 of «The Panamic Deep-Sea Echini», it 1s
easily seen that the young interambulacral plates originate at the sides of the ocular plates and are not
transformed anal plates. — That the anai plates push their way down into the median part of the inter-
ambulacrum, separating the two series of interambulacral plates at their upper end, I have never denied
or thought absurd; but I must maintain that these anal plates never become interambulacral plates, which
was, so far as I am able to see, the meaning of the statement given in the «Blake»-Echini. Whether that
is also the meaning maintained in the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini>. I am unable to gather; the ex-
pression «a flow of the anal plates into the interambulacrum similar to the flow of the ambulacral
plates of the corona on tothe buccal plates of the actinal system», as well as the expression «the intru-
sion or flow of the anal plates into the interambulacral system» (p.117) do not seem to mean a trans-
formation of these plates into interambulacral plates. If that be the case, Professor Agassiz seems to
me to put a new meaning into his old statement, and thus, his remarks against my criticism have no
bearing against me, since I have never thought of saying a word against the latter meaning.

I think I have now answered all the criticisms which Professor Agassiz directed against
me. There are only a few of his more general remarks on the Echinothurids concerning which I must
say a few words on this occasion.

Professor Agassiz begins the Chapter on the Achinothuride with this remark: «We may be
justified in assuming that the anal system is in the Echinothuride, as in the Cidaride, covered by

five small anal plates» (p.75). Ido not think we are justified in making this assumption. The youngest

24 ECHINOIDEA. II.

specimens of any Echinothurid hitherto examined (leaving aside the very doubtful «Asthenosoma» hystrix
of 31" figured in Rev. of Ech. Pl. IIc.) are those of 3™™ in diameter described by me (Part I. p. 174). I
have stated there that «the periproct is, even in the smallest specimens, covered by a number of small
irregular plates, with no larger between. So a central plate seems never to be found here.» Since in
this very young stage the anal plates are thus already present in considerable number and do not show
any trace of five original larger plates covering the whole anal area, I do not think we are justified
in assuming that these 5 large plates are found in a yet earlier stage. I give here a figure of the anal
area of the youngest specimen of Phormosoma (scarcely 3™™) seen by me. (Fig. 1.)

A matter of much more importance, however, is the statement (p. 91) that in «Phormosoma
hispidum «the bare interambulacral area adjoining the primordial plate is covered with a few minute,
elongate, irregularly arranged plates, which correspond to the interradial buccal plates of Cidaris».
The same thing is stated for Aamptosoma indistinctum (p.112): «In this species .... we find a few of
the same irregular elongate interambulacral plates which in the
Cidaridee are as well and as regularly developed as the ambu-
lacral buccal plates». It was hitherto assumed to be one of the
most important features distinguishing the Czdaride from all
the other regular Echinoids that both the ambulacral and inter-
ambulacral plates continue over the peristome; the Achimothuride
were distinguished by the ambulacral plates alone continuing
over the peristome. If these small plates of the peristome found
in the two Echinothurids by Professor Agassiz were really
homologous to the interradial buccal plates of the Czdarid@ this

fundamental character would have to be given up. Fortunately,

the figures given by Agassiz himself afford the proof that
Fig. 1. Apical svste fa young Phormo- : : :
shoe oa ey ma a ee ce these plates are not homologous with the interradial buccal

soma placenta, 3™™ in diameter. 28/;.

plates of the Cidarids; since the primordial interambulacral

plate is persistent, these small plates lying in the buccal membrane inside (adorally) the primordial

plate cannot possibly have any relation whatever to the interambulacral plates and cannot be said to

correspond to the interradial buccal plates of Cidaris». They correspond to those small, irregular
plates found in the peristome of the other regular Echini.

In treating the Echinothurids in Part I, I had to leave zzcerte sedis the species «Phormosoma
panamense and hispidum, and Professor Agassiz, not recognizing my limitation of the genus Phor-
mosoma, does not take the trouble to state to which group these species belong. But from the very
careful description and figures of the test combined with my examination of the pedicellariz of the
type specimens in the U. S. National Museum, it can be said with certainty that they belong to the
genus Echinosoma. It is true that the character of the primary actinal spines of pazamense is unknown,
but all the other characters are decidedly those of Echinosoma, so that I think we may safely conclude
that the spines also are tipped with a hoof and not provided with a fleshy sack. A more detailed de-
scription of the pedicellaricze I cannot give on this occasion; it will suffice to say that they agree rather

closely with those of Achimosoma uranus and tenue: in panamense \ have not, however, found the

ECHINOIDEA. II.

nN
on

larger form of tridentate pedicellariz. In «Ph.» hispidum 1 have found a kind of ophicephalous pedi-
cellaria; this may suggest that ophicephalous pedicellarize will prove to exist also in the other species
of the genus Achimosoma. Agassiz is then evidently right in making panamense an ally of «Ph.»
tenue, whereas it is certainly less fortunate to make «Ph.» hispidum, «the Pacific representative of the
Caribbean and Northern Atlantic Ph. wranus», as by the latter is probably meant not the true Ach7-
nosoma uranus, which is not known from the Caribbean Sea, but the A/ygrosoma Petersii, which has
hitherto been wrongly called Phormosoma uranus.— Regarding the new species Phormosoma zealandie
A. Ag., established on a specimen from the «Challenger» St. 169, identified as «Asthenosoma gractle?>»,
it is impossible to state with certainty to which genus it really belongs, since not a word is said about
the spines and pedicellariz; to judge from the figure given of an ambulacrum (PI. 51. Fig. 3) it may be
supposed to be likewise an Echinosoma, which would be in accordance with the statement (p. 108) that

it is allied to «Ph.» hispidum.

Professors Bell, de Loriol and Lambert besides Professor Agassiz have also opposed
my classificatory results. Professor de Loriol only remarks regarding the genus Pseudechinus es-
tablished by me for «Echznus» albocinctus Hutton, that he thinks «que cest aller un peu loin que de
créer une coupe nouvelle basée sur ce seul et unique caractére (et encore faudrait-il s’assurer quil est
parfaitement constant), qui ne peut s’observer que sur les exemplaires dont le revétement est entiére-
ment conservé»!. As Professor D6derlein has already (op. cit. p. 231— 3) carefully answered these objec-
tions, I need only refer to his remarks on the question with which I quite agree. I may however make
the more general remark that in the Families Achinide, Toxopneustide and Echinometride, the structure
of the test is upon the whole very similar, so much so indeed, that it seems impossible in the test
alone to find reliable characters even of the families, as is well seen by the manner in which forms of
all three families were put together in the genera Achinus and Strongylocentrotus, before the charac-
ters of the pedicellariz and spicules were taken into consideration. It almost looks as if, on reaching
the high level of development of these forms, nature could not go any farther on those lines, (the
Echinometride, of course, form a remarkable exception), and, instead, went on to develop the pedicel-
larize, especially the globiferous, into very characteristic structures. Be that as it may; everybody who
has studied a large number of the genera and species of these three families, with regard’ also to
their pedicellariz and spicules, must be struck with the remarkable constancy and characteristic appear-
ance of these organs and find it very natural to make them the foundation of the classification, in
spite of their being so small that they cannot be seen without careful microscopical examination. —

De Loriol’s remarks (op. cit. p. 16) on my limitation of the genus Sterechznus as well as those
of Professor Déderlein (loc. cit.), I cannot answer before I have undertaken a renewed study of this
whole group, which I intend to do in my Reports of the Swedish and the German South-Polar Ex-
peditions.

Professor Bell in his Report on the Echinoidea from South-Africa? most decidedly keeps aloof
from my classification, without giving, however, very definite objections. To his remark that he does

« Notes pour servir a l'étude des Echinodermes. II. Ser. Fase. II. 1904. p. 20.
2 Marine Investigations in South Africa. Vol. III. 1904. The Echinoderma. Part I. Echinoidea.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 4

ECHINOIDEA. II.

not think «that any single character should be made the basis of a classification or that a distance of
even hundreds of miles of sea-bottom is sufficient evidence of specific distinctness» (p. 167), I must
refer in answer to what has been said above (p. 10) against Professor Agassiz’ characterizing my
classification as being based on a single character, and also to the above remarks on Professor de
Loriol’s objections. As for taking «even hundreds of miles of sea-bottom» as sufficient evidence of
specific distinctness, I absolutely agree with Professor Bell, and I am sure he will be unable to point
out any of the species described by me as being based upon geographical distance alone. But, on the
other hand, I think Professor Bell will agree with me that great geographical and bathymetrical
distance ought always to make one careful in referring specimens to a species otherwise known only
from another region, and only to identify them with such species on finding after a careful study of
all available characters that they cannot be distinguished. I, for my part, do recognize some species
of Echini as almost cosmopolitan in their distribution, e.g. Hemiaster expergitus (see also my remarks
on Echinocardium cordatum im this Part), though I do not recognize Echinus norvegicus as a cosmo-
politan species, as it was made by Professor Agassiz.

Professor Bell’s remark that «the present condition» of the family Achinothuride «does not
warrant any addition to it that need not be made» (p. 169), does not seem to me quite warranted; at
least it seems to me that it is easy enough to refer the species to the genera as diagnosed by me
whereas it was extremely difficult indeed to distinguish between Phormosoma and Asthenosoma after the
old fashion. And when Professor Bell expresses the hope that Professor Agassiz by means of his
large collections will be able to give us «a definite idea of the range and character of the variation
of the Echinothuride, | must say that, if «the minute differences» are not taken into consideration, I
fear the «variations» will not be very reliable. The generic value of characters found in pedicellariz
may, of course, be disputed; but we can be quite sure that specimens of the same species do not have
pedicellariz of very different structure, so that these minute characters, so easily seen with a very
little technical skill, should at all events never be despised.

Lambert! remarks: «Sans nier la valeur des caractéres fournis paz les organes caducs et mi-
croscopiques de l’Echinide, j’estime que leur nomenclature doit surtout étre fondée sur un ensemble
de caractéres observables, aussi bien chez les fossiles que chez les vivants, car la phylogénie est aussi
indispensable que l’embryogénie a l’exacte compréhension des formes actuelles. I] ne faut pas appliquer
a des animaux inférieurs, dont les organes sont moins spécialisés, une méthode qui peut étre excellente
pour des tres tres ¢volués et perfectionnés, mais qui, pour les Echinides, fausse toutes les analogies
en placant dans des familles différentes des formes aussi voisines que Loxechinus et Strongylocentrotus,
que Parasalenia et Gontopygus». For the rest, he states that he agrees with A gassiz in his views
on my classification. The claim that the classification of Echini has to be founded on characters
also observable in fossil forms is, so far as I can see, unscientific. It is quite impossible to say a priori
which character will be of primary importance for classification. Only by a careful comparative exam-
ination of all the characters presented by the animals in question can it be decided on which of
these characters the classification has to be founded. When it is proved that some organ which can-

In M. Boule et A, Theyenin: Fossiles de la céte orientale de Madagascar. Annales de Paléontologie. I. 1906.
p- 14 (56). ‘

ECHINOIDEA. II. 27

not be found in the fossil forms is of primary importance, we must admit that the fossil forms are in
some respect insufficiently preserved for identification. I quite agree with Professor Déderlein in
his remarks on this subject (op. cit. p. 69). It is, indeed, unfortunate that a good many forms of a group
of such eminent palzeontological and geological importance as the Echinide should not be in quite
a fit condition for reliable identification; but that cannot be helped. It is a fact that the naked tests
of several recent species of the three families Echinid@, Toxopneustide and Echinometride cannot be re-
ferred with certainty to their proper genus, or even to the family — the old genera Achinus and Strongylo-
centrotus furnish the most evident proof thereof. But when that is the case with the recent forms, it can
certainly not be much better with the fossil forms of such families. We must be glad that it is really
possible in very many cases to get a definite result by the examination of the test alone. To point out
the case of the genera Loxechinus and Strongylocentrotus being placed in two different families, as a proof
that the use of pedicellariz: in classification <fausse toutes les analogies», seems to me as unfortunate as
the designation of the pedicellariz as «moins spécialisés». To unite Loxechinus and Strongylocentrotus
on account of their both being polyporous (which, I think, is Lambert’s reason for doing so) seems
to me to be an overestimation of a character which has beyond doubt been developed separately in
different groups (Part I. p. 132-33; Déderlein op. cit. p. 203). As for the other case pointed out by
Lambert as an unfortunate result of my classification, the placing in different families of Parasalenia
and Goniopygus', I admit that I am not personally acquainted with the fossil Gonzopygus, and it may
be quite possible that I have been mistaken in placing it in the family Avéacide, but since it is
stated to have its ambulacra composed after the diadematoid type, I fail to see how it could be so
very closely related to Parasalenia, which has its ambulacra composed after the echinoid type. The
pretended close relationship between Gonzopygus and Parasalenia seems to me more founded on false
analogies than their separation in two different families. And in any case this classificatory result was
not reached by the study of pedicellariz, Gonopygus being only known as. fossil. Finally, when
Lambert marks the pedicellarize as «moins spécialicés», I really wonder how these organs, which
exhibit so great a richness of forms, in many cases no less than four or five different kinds being
found in the same specimen, and so exquisite an anatomical and histological structure, could be thus
characterized. And I do not see the reason why it should be wrong to use the same classificatory
principles for the lower animals which have proved good for the higher and more «perfectionnés» animals.

Upon the whole, I do not see that in all the critical remarks against my classification set forth
by Professors Agassiz, Bell and Lambert there is any real, principal objection. I have no doubt
that those who will take the trouble to make a careful study of the pedicellarize in the different forms,
especially the regular Echini of the families Echznide, Toxopneustide and Echinometride, and not be
satisfied with literary criticisms alone without a study of the objects themselves, will agree with at
least the main results reached by me. The fact that Dr. de Meijere and, above all, Professor Déder-
lein after his extensive studies accept my results in the main points makes me confident that my
method, which is, indeed, to take all the characters available for systematic purposes into consideration,
and to find out by a comparative study of as many forms as possible the systematic value of the
different characters, will ultimately prove the right one.

« Delage & Hérouard. Traité de Zoologie concréte. III. p. 235, 245.

28 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Suborder Clypeastroidea.

Fam. Fibulariide.

18. Echinocyamus pusillus (O. F. Muller).
Pl. XII. Figs. 4, 6, 9, 18—20. 22, 23, 26, 27, 29—3I.
Principal synonyms: Echinocyamus angulosus Leske.
Fibularia tarentina Vamarck.
Echinocyamus parthenopeus Costa.
_- speciosus Costa.

Principal literature: O. F. Miiller: Zoologize Danicee Prodromus. 1776. p. 236. Zoologia Danica.
III. 1789. p.18. Tab. XCI. Figs. 5—6. — Leske: Additamenta. 1778. p. 215. — Iamarck: Animaux
sans vertébres. 1816. p.17. — Forbes: British Starfishes. 1841. p.175. Monograph Echinoderms Brit.
Tertiaries. 1852. p. 10. Pl. I. — L. Agassiz: Monographies @Echinodermes. II. Des Scutelles. 1841.
p. 128, 130. Pl. XXVII. Figs. r—8, 14—18. — Philippi: Beschr. einiger neuen Echinodermen ete. Arch.
f, Naturgesch. 1845. p.356. — Agassiz & Desor: Catalogue raisonné des Echinod. 1847. p. 82. —
Diiben & Koren: Skandinaviens Echinod. 1844. p. 279. — M. Sars: Norges Echinodermer. p. 95.
Middelhavets Littoralfauna. p. 116. — Heller: Zoophyten u. Echinod. d. Adriat. Meeres. 1868. p. 66.
— Costa: Monografia degli Echinocyami viventi e fossili delle Provincie Napolitane. Atti R. Acad.
sci. fis. e matem. Napoli. III. 1867. (No. 14) p.4. PL I. 1-2. — A. Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 111,
304. Pl. XI.e. 3. — Lovén: Etudes sur les Ech. Pl. XVI. 139. Pl. XLIV; Echinologica. Pl. IX. 102—9.
XI. 141, 145. — Cuénot: Etudes morphologiques sur les Echinodermes. Arch. de Biologie. XI. 18gr.
Pl. XXIV. Figs. 9, 16. — Théel: Development of Echinocyamus pusillus. 1892. — Koehler: Echi-
nides et Ophiures ... de !Hirondelle. (229)'. 1898. p. 24. — Ludwig: Echinod. d. Mittelmeeres. p. 559
— Bell: Catalogue Brit. Echinoderms. p. 160. Pl. XVI. 8—g9. —- Hoyle: Revised List Brit. Echinoidea
p. 419. — Airaghi:? Echinidi Terziari del Piemonte e della Liguria. Palzontogr. ital. VII. 1gor. p. 178.
Pl. XXII. — Grieg: Oversigt over det nordlige Norges Echinodermer. 1902. p. 32, — Doderlein:
Archtische Seeigel. Fauna Arctica. 1905. p. 382. Die Echinoiden der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition.
1906. p. 234.

Non: A. Agassiz: Revision of Echini. Pl. XIII. r—8, «Blake»-Echinoidea. p. 40. «Challenger»-
Echinoidea. p. 118. — Bernard: (78)'.

For other less important literature reference may be made to «Revision of Echiniv, Ludwig:
Echinod. d. Mittelm., Bell: Catalogue Brit. Ech. and Hoyle: Rev. List Brit. Ech.

Though this species has been so often described I must make some additional remarks on it,
which I think will not prove to be superfluous.

Agassiz has made the important observation that small pores occur along the horizontal
sutures of the ambulacra as in other Clypeastrids3; as, however, his description and figures are not

' The number refers to the bibliographical list in Part I.
Cited after Zoological Record. 1go1 Not seen by me.

i Joh. Miiller: Bau der Echinodermen. Abhandl. d. Acad. Berlin. 1853.

BCHINOIDEA. ILI. 2¢

based on the true Ach. pusellus — as is shown below — they do not give a correct representation of
this feature in pesiddus. These pores are not most numerous above the ambitus, as is stated in the
diagnosis of the genus “chimocyamus given in «Revision of Echini» (p. 304); on the contrary, while
they occur in a single series along each suture above the ambitus they become quite crowded on the
actinal side, covering a considerable part of the plates and increasing in number towards the peristome
(Pl. XII. Fig. 27). On the analysis of the test given by Lovén (Etudes. Pl. XLIV) the distribution of
these small pores is very carefully shown. I must add only that these pores are also found within the
petals, on the inner side of the double pores, though of course less numerous and diminishing in numbers
towards the apical system, only one pore being found on the inner side of the upper pairs of pores of the
petals. (Pl. XII. Fig. 31.) Outside the petals also a few small pores occur on both sides, but only at some few
of the outer pairs of pores. — In young specimens these small pores are few in number and rather difficult
to see; in quite small specimens no small pores are found within the petals. — The inner edge of the
-ambulacral plates adjoining the peristome is abruptly bent inwards and here two considerably larger
pores are found (Pl. XII. Figs. 26, 27), corresponding to two tube-feet distinctly larger than the numerous
small tube-feet which cover most of the actinal side. These larger tube-feet are evidently homologous
to the large buccal feet of the Regular Echini; otherwise they differ from the small tube-feet only in
size, and, like these, they are not provided with spicules or calcareous ring.

De Meijere (op. cit. p. 107) remarks that there must be some variation in the relative size of
the genital and ocular pores in fzsz/lus, referring to the figures given under that name by Agassiz
in «Rey. of Echini.» Having examined a large number of specimens of Ech. pusillus 1 find that the
genital pores are always larger than the ocular pores, (Pl. XIL Fig. 31), and that the latter are generally
much smaller, though sometimes the difference is not very great. The difference in this respect between
the figure 3. Pl. XI. e. and figs. 1 and 6. Pl. XIII in «Rev. of Ech.» is due to the fact that these figures repre-
sent two different species, only the former being the true Leh. pusellus. The genital pores appear very
early, in specimens of only c. 3™™ length; I have even seen specimens of only 2™™ in which the geni-
tal openings were already distinct. — As stated by Lovén (Etudes. Pl. XVI. 139) there is only one
madreporic pore, situated near the anterior end of the apical system. This feature is of some impor-
tance, giving a good distinguishing character between “chinocyamus and young specimens of Clypeaster,
the number of madreporic pores beginning to increase early in the latter. (In a young Clyfeaster sp.
from St. Cruz of only 5™" length I find 6 pores in the madreporic plate).

The internal supports of the test as well as the depressions seen along the sutures between the
actinal ambulacral plates are rather well shown on the figures Pl. I. r2—13 of Forbes (Monogr. Ech. Brit.
Tert.), and Pl. XXVII.6—7 of L. Agassiz. Costa also (op. cit. Fig. 2.C. D.) gives (rather coarse) figures
of the interior of the test. The figure given in «Rey. of Ech.» (Pl. XIII. 7), differs very considerably
from those above cited; it is evidently another species. A detailed description of these internal struc-
tures need not be given, I may refer to the figures given by Forbes and L. Agassiz and to the
one given here (Pl. XII. Fig. 29) for comparison with the Ach. grandiporus described below. It will be
remarked that the radiating supports continue as far as to the peristome; on the abactinal side they only
continue to the outer end of the petals. These ridges are formed by the edges of the interambulacra.

The ambulacra show, as seen from the inside, a fairly deep depression along each transverse suture, the

ECHINOIDEA. II.

pores being placed in these depressions. The innermost ones are directed almost straight towards the
border of the peristome, farther out they become parallel to the ambitus; the same feature is seen in
the arrangement of the pores as seen from the outside of the test. (Pl. XII. Fig. 27).

Among the tubercles are seen some mostly rounded, sometimes irregular, glassy protuberances
about as large as the primary tubercles; they are only elevations from the test, not carrying spines or
pedicellaria. They are specially numerous on the actinal side (Pl. XII. Fig. 26), and when seen under
the microscope are very conspicuous among the white tubercles on account of their smooth, shining
surface. On the abactinal side they are less numerous; such a protuberance is generally situated be-
tween the two pores of each pair of the petals, elongated in shape and with a distinct longitudinal
furrow in the middle. (Pl. XII. Fig. 22.)

The spines are short, making a dense clothing. The primary ones, about o5—o-7™™ long, are
slightly tapering, densely serrate, except at the base (Pl. XII. Fig. 19); those around the peristome are
curved. Generally they are a little thicker in the middle, as seen in the figure cited; sometimes they
are distinctly widened in the outer part. The point is generally worn off. As pointed out by Agassiz
those on the actinal side are somewhat longer than the abactinal ones. The miliary spines (Pl. XII.
Fig. 9, 18) are only about half the size of the primary ones, a little widened in the point, which forms
a sort of crown, the <endcrown» of de Meijere, to whom belongs the merit of having shown the
great systematic importance of the structure of the spines, especially the miliaries, in the Clypeastroi-
dea. («Siboga»-Echinoidea. p. 113). The longitudinal ribs are slightly widened above with the edge
finely serrate, sometimes almost smooth. The small radial plates in the crown are simple or with a
few (2, sometimes 3 or 4) dentations. It is worth noticing that, when the living animals are put in
alcohol, the spines turn intensely green; this holds good also for several other Clypeastrids, if not
for all of them.

The pedicellariz are represented by three kinds, viz. ophicephalous, tridentate and triphyllous.
The ophicephalous pedicellariz (Pl. XII. Figs. 4,6) are small and rather simple in structure: the blade is
narrow, elongated, widening a little in the outer part; the edge is somewhat densely serrate along
the whole length. There is no distinct basal part; the articular surface is very strongly developed,
the three valves articulating so closely together that it is almost impossible to separate them with-
out breaking (in &ch. grandiporus the valves separate easily). In one of the valves the are is very
large; another has the are prolonged into a long thornlike process, which goes through the hole in
the large arc; its point is more or less bent. The third valve has the are very slightly developed, with
no process. (Comp. Pl. XII. Figs. 8, 11,12 of Ech. erandiporus). This structure is well seen in the figure
given by Cuénot (op. cit. — he wrongly names it a tridactyle pedicellaria); de Meijere also gives
a description of it (op. cit. p. 108). The head articulates directly with the upper end of the stalk,
the large are resting on the cup-shaped upper end of the stalk, attached by some muscular fibres to
the bottom of the cup, as shown in Cuénot’s figure. The stalk is comparatively very robust, almost
hourglass-shaped, in the middle part it consists of compact calcareous substance, at both ends it is
of the common, looser structure. These pedicellarize are especially numerous on the actinal side,
behind the anal area. The triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XII. Fig. 20) are very small, the head not

more than ca. oo4™™; the stalk is like that of the ophicephalous pedicellarize, only much more slender

ECHINOIDEA. II 27
o

and not cup-shaped at the upper end; the neck is well developed. The blade is coarsely dentate along
the whole edge; the lower part of the blade is very narrow, forming a small tube. The basal part is
not distinctly developed, the articular surface is broad and well developed. Some larger forms, very
similar to these, might also be termed triphyllous pedicellarize, but from analogy with the Ach. grandr-
porus described below, in which species there can be no doubt that these are tridentate pedicellaric,
the larger ones may also be termed tridentate in pesz//us. (Pl. XII. Fig. 23). The blade is more elong-
ated than in the triphyllous; the edge is serrate, the serrations on the point being the larger, often
considerably larger than in the one figured; the basal part as in the triphyllous. Size ca. 008—o09™",

The buccal membrane does not contain any plates or spicules; the same holds good for the
internal organs. The genital organs are much branched and interlaced, but apparently not anastomos-
ing, forming a broad ring. The axial organ shows some distinct swellings. The madreporic plate has
on the inside a deep and large impression for the axial organ and the ampulla.

The largest specimen of this species seen by me is 15™™ in length. The size 9 lines (20™™)
given in Zoologia Danica (loc. cit.) seems hardly correct. It is very variable as regards the shape of
the test. This has caused older authors (L. Agassiz, Forbes) to distinguish a number of «species
based almost exclusively on differences in the shape of the test, viz. among the recent forms: /. jw-
sillus, angulosus and tarentinus, besides a number of fossil species from the Tertiaries. Philippi (op.
cit.) has first pointed out that these differences are unreliable for specific characters, since all the dif-
ferent forms may be found among specimens from the same locality. Philippi and all the later
authors after him (except Forbes) therefore regard all the recent forms from the European seas as
one species including also several of the fossil «species». I quite agree with this, and might further
add as synonymous the £&. disfrdulus Forb. and £. oviformis Forb., both from the Crag, examples of
the same shape as these occurring likewise among the recent specimens. — Forbes further disting-
uishes no less than six different varieties of -ch. pusellus, all of which, he agrees, «may be taken in
one locality at the present day». It is evident that all these forms cannot rank as «varieties», they
represent merely individual variations in the shape of the test. — Perhaps the specimens from the
Feeroe Islands may rank as a distinct variety. On comparing them with specimens from the Kattegat
and the Mediterranean I find that the number of pores is upon the whole a little smaller in the former
(comp. the tables given below, p. 34); but it is no constant feature, specimens from the Feeroe Islands
occurring with as large a number of pores as is generally found in the specimens from the Kattegat. The
shape of the test is upon the whole more elongated than in the specimens from the Kattegat; also, the
primary spines are generally somewhat less serrate than those of the typical form, sometimes even quite
smooth ones may be found. — The specimens from the Limfjord may also be distinguished as a local
form, remarkable for the close tuberculation. — The Mediterranean form I am unable to distinguish asa
separate variety: they closely agree with the specimens from the Kattegat. The same holds good for
the specimens from the Azores.

This species was taken by the <Ingolf» at St. 86 (Brede Bugt, Iceland, 7 dead tests). At the
Westmandéer, Dr. A. C. Johansen has taken 4 dead tests (30 fathoms); in the Zoological Museum is
found further an old dead test from Reykiavik. These are, so far as I know, the only specimens of

Echinocyamus pusillus known trom Iceland; it thus seems that the species does not live there now,

ECHINOIDEA. II.

nN

and Iceland must accordingly for the present not be named among the localities of this species. At
the Feeroe Islands I have taken (in 1899) enormous quantities of dead tests together with some living
specimens; thus in ca. 150 fathoms, 13 miles W. by S. of «Munken» (at the South End of Suderé) I took
in one dredging 672 dead tests and only 14 living specimens; in ca. 70 fathoms, 9 miles E.S. E. of
Bispen» (at the north end of the islands) one dredging. gave 50 dead tests and 2 living specimens.
At these localities also enormous quantities of dead mollusc-shells and very few living specimens
were found; they may with full right be termed submarine «shellbanks» *.

For the rest, Echinocyamus pusillus occurs from Northern Norway, along the European coasts,
in the British Seas, the Mediterranean, at the Azores and along the African Coast down to Cape Bojador
(Déderlein. Op. cit. p. 234). The bathymetrical distribution is from o—ca. 4oo fathoms, the greatest
depth from which the species is hitherto known with certainty being 835 meters (61° 7’ Lat. N. 9° 30"
Long. W. — «Thor» 1904). The fairly numerous records of its occurrence at greater depths (down to
(800—r1000 fathoms) are, so far as I have been able to ascertain, all based on wrong identifications, as
shown below. (A pair of small, old dead tests of Ech. puszllus from a depth of 1290 M. (Lat. N. 38°
Long. W. 30°) do not prove that the species lives at so great a depth.)

According to Professor A. Agassiz, whom all the later authors follow in this, LeAznocyamus
pusillus is found also on the American side of the Atlantic, viz. at Florida and the West Indies (Gulf
of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Brazil) at a depth of 75—ca. 800 fathoms («most abundant between 150 and
4oo fathoms». «Blake»-Echini. p. 40). It is also recorded from 5 fathoms at Salt Key (Pourtalés); but
since Professor Agassiz himself owns to have at first mistaken young Clypeasters (.S/olonoclypus) for
Echinocyamus (Rev. of Echini p. 304), it may perhaps be allowed to suggest that the specimens from
Salt Key are also really young Clypeasters, this Achznocyamus having nowhere else been recorded
from less than 75 fathoms. The fact that Ach. puszdlus is not known (living) from Iceland, Greenland
and the American Coast north of the Florida Strait makes it beforehand doubtful, whether the American
form can be really identical with the European species (though, of course, it is not impossible, other
instances of species occurring both at the West Indies and in the Mediterranean being well known).
A close examination of specimens from the «Blake», the «Albatross» and the «Challenger» (St. 122),
respectively in the U. S. National Museum, the Museum of Yale College and the British Museum has
fully confirmed my doubt. These specimens differ from Z7ch. pusildis in so many important features
that there can be no doubt of their forming a very distinct, new species. I am especially indebted to
Professor Rathbun for sending material of this species for study to Copenhagen.

Echinocyamus pusillus is further recorded from a depth of 1300 M. from the Azores (Koehler.
Op. cit. p. 24) and from 1694 M. at Cape Verde (Déderlein. Op. cit. p. 234). Having seen that the Ameri-
can specimens were not really Ach. pusillus 1 felt some doubt, whether the specimens from such great
depths might not prove identical with the American species, and I therefore applied to Professors
Déderlein and Koehler for permission to examine the specimens from these localities. With their
usual great liberality they gave their permission; Professor Koehler even sent me all his rich ma-
terial of Echinocyamus, and Professor Chun, besides allowing me to partly denude the only specimen

‘Comp. A. C. Johansen: Om Aflejringen af Molluskernes Skaller i Indsoer og i Havet. Vidensk. Medd. fra Natur-
hist. Foren. Kjobenhayn. gor. p. 30.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 7

&®

from the deep station off Cape Verde, lent me the coloured figure made on board the « Valdivia» from
the living animal. Further, Professor Théel sent me all the material of Zchinocyamus from the «Jo-
sephina»-Expedition. I wish here to express my deep gratitude to these gentlemen for their great
liberality. I have also received two specimens of «Zchinocyamus pusillis» from the Paris Museum from
the «Travailleur» (or «Talisman») 2tr00 M. The result of a careful study of all this material has
been that most of these specimens proved identical with the American form, and that yet a third
species is represented by some specimens from the greater depths, whereas the true Achinocyamus pu-
sillus is only found among those from more shallow water. The two new species are described here
under the names “chznocyamus grandiporus and Ech. macrostomus.

Echinocyamus grandiporus n.sp. The shape of the test (Pl. XII. Figs. 1,5) is, as a general

rule, more rounded than in fzsz//us, scarcely broader at the posterior than at the anterior end, which
-1s almost invariably the case in the latter species. Also the height of the test is generally a little
larger than in fzszl/us. On account of the great variability in pzsillws, the shape of the test cannot,
however, afford any very reliable character, the more so, as some variability occurs also in grandiporus
in this respect, though not so much by far as in fzszdlus.

The madreporic plate is a little elevated and generally somewhat larger than in pwsrllus,; the
peristome and anal area are generally not larger than in that species. The anal area is small, a little
nearer the edge of the test than is the case in fzszllws. The peristome may be more or less pentagonal;
the edge is only slightly bent inwards, and the whole actinal side is more flat than is generally the
case in fuszllus. The apical system presents a conspicuous difference from Azsz//us. The ocular pores
are very large, as large as or even a little larger than the genital pores; the 4 genital pores and 5
ocular pores form together a conspicuous circle or pentagon round the madreporic plate with its one
madreporic pore in the same position as in fpwszllws. (In one instance I have found a genital pore
developed in the odd posterior interambulacrum). This feature makes a very easily observable char-
acter distinguishing this species from fzsz//ws; in accordance herewith it-may be said almost with
certainty that the Fig. 3. Pl. Xle in «Revision of Echini» is the true Azzsz//us, whereas those figured
on Pl. XIII. 1—8 are grandiporus, which is also seen by an examination of the number and arrange-
ment of the ambulacral pores in these figures. — It will be noticed that in the Fig.6. Pl. XIII of the
«Revision» 5 very small pores are represented between the five large ocular pores in the place of
the genital pores. I have myself seen a specimen, 5°57" in length, in which the genital openings are
much smaller than the ocular pores. The figure mentioned may thus well represent such a specimen;
the presence of 5 genital openings may, of course, be possible, since it can be found among specimens
with the genital pores of the usual size; but, in any case, if the figure be correct, it represents an
abnormal individual. The shape of the petals in this figure is, otherwise, not in accordance with what
is generally found in gravdiporus, so that it seems probable that the differences shown in this figure
from other specimens of grandiporus are due to incorrect drawing. The small size of the genital pores
in the case mentioned will probably be due to an abnormal late development of the pores. That the
specimens with the small pores should represent the males is very unlikely; in that case their

number would certainly be considerably larger.

The Ingolf-Fxpedition. IV. 2.

on

2 ECHINOIDEA. II.
34

Table showing the number of pairs of pores in the petals of Echinocyamus pusillus and grandiporus.

Echinocyamus pusillis. Echinocyamus grandiporus.
Kattegat. ] Feroe Islands (continued). | West-Indies.
. ntero- c E oes Antero- Postero- | : Antero- Postero-
see Agr ea pee” [sie AR” ial ea” | Ske Spat” nial er
6-5 mm 6—8 5—6 6 | 6 mm 4—5 3-4 N53 See 3 3=2 4—5
(es 6—7 5—6 SO piles a5 34 4—5 Sit 3 3 ieee!
Sa 5 5 5—6 55m 4—5 3-4 3=4 wis 2 2 2-3
Gis 5—6 5 5—6 Ae 3-4 3—4 ee 3-4 FL SH A=
45 - 5—6 5 SO AM Vis 3—4 3 3-4 | 33 = 3-4 B= 4
45 - 5—6 5—6 6--7 85) 3 3 3 |) 6 2 2 2-3
45 - 6 5 5-6 | 3 - 2 2—3 2—3 56 - I—2 2 2—3
AS ie nO 4-5 Seoiml|
4 = 5 5—6 5—6 Mediterranean. | Azores, Josephine Bank.
anes 4 sg : 19 mm 8—10 8—9 g—10 g mm 4-5 4 4—5
Aoi a 4 4 4—5 Oe Io—II g—10 g—I10 Gy = 5 4—5 5—6
Sieie & a4 34 3-4 8-5 - 8 8 7—8 75 - 3 oa 4
inal Cag 3 Set 8:5 - 9 8 g—10 7s 3-4 4 4
Sy = 3-4 3 3-4 8:5 - 7—8 6—7 7—8 | Sens 5 2—3 3
ae 1 cae t ie 1 ae ae i oy! eae poe one i oe cae
Gai aneg: eoejuscavencl: || «22: 7 I a ag ol SCE gait 2 pas
7 7 7 6—7 515) 2 23) 3
PW 65 - 6 5=6 37 Gl = 2 2—3 2—3
Lim fjord. 6:5 - 6 mG AG one z 4 BE
25mm g—I0 7-8 8—9g 6°5 - 6—7 6—7 6—7 Rs 2—3 3 4
Se 9 7-9 8—9g 6'5 - 6—7 6 6—7 43. —- oO o—1 o—1
ers 8 7 lee 6 - 6 6 6—7 43 =«- o-!I o—!I o-1
ay s 9 8 7—8 5:5 - 6 5—6 6 42 - 1 1-2 t—2
M5 8 7 7 5:5 - 5—6 45 4—5 fz o=—I o—1 I—2
2 = 8—g 7—8 2 5 - 5 4-5 AS {le o—1 o-1 I
OF 7 Sei Se 5. 5 4-5 i || Bg = o o-1 o
Q = 7 6 6—7 5a 5—6 5—6 5—6 34 - fo) ° ©
5 2 =o Carl 4°5 - 4-5 4 4 20 o—1 o-1 o-1
6 1—® fou 18) Tae 4 3-4 3—4 28 - o o o
55 67 Sie 67) |
5 ay Sal aa) Azores.
4°5 5—6 5-6 5—6 a ae en ies $—9
We = fe) 8—9 g—10
Feroe Islands. 7 7 7—8 6—7 7-8
1o mm 6—47 6—7 8—9 6 e 8—9 8—9 g—10 |
9 7 G7, fs 6 a= 7 6—7 7 |
9 ae tal Sie | ets =a 5—6 56
8'5 2 en? lias 5°5 5—6 4—5 5—6
els 7 ea (he Je a 4—5 3—4 4-5
85 - 6—7 “me So] 4 - 4—5 3—4 4—5
si 6 6 6=7 4 3—4 3 3—4
8 2 oral See ae 4—5 4 4
7'5 Lie Os) cra ape 3—4 2-3 3
7 7 58 6-7 | 35 - 3-4 2—3 3-4
7 6 4—5 5-6 | 3 a A 2
7 6—7 5—=7, 6—7 28 3—4 3-4 3-4
65 6 5 5—6 2:8 3—4 3 3
65 6 5—6 6--7 Qt: I I 1-—2
6°5 6 5—6 oS 7 The three smaller specimens with the
6°5 4 3-5 4 genital pores well developed.
6 5 4—5 4-6

ECHINOIDEA. II. 3

on

The petals are considerably shorter and less developed than in fusz//us, the number of pores
being almost double in the latter species, when comparing specimens of a corresponding size of
the two species, as is easily seen from the table given and from a comparison of figures 5 and 31.
Pl. XII. The pores are somewhat smaller than in fzszldus (those of the inner series smaller than
those of the outer series), with no distinct glassy protuberance between the pores of each pair; the
pairs are also more oblique and more distant than in fzszl/us. It is further a conspicuous feature
that the petals are converging outwards, the two series of each petal being more distant at the inner
end — likewise a very conspicuous difference from pwsz//us. (Comp. Figs. 5 and 31. Pl. XII). (In one
specimen, 857" in length, the petals are quite irregular, consisting of some few, scattered pairs of
pores; only the right posterior petal is almost normal. Also the genital and ocular pores are quite
abnormally placed in this specimen). There is further a considerable difference from fzsz//us in the
number of the small ambulacral pores; on the actinal side they are arranged only in a single series
along each horizontal suture, except in the two inner pairs of sets, in which they form, more or less
distinctly, two series. This is the case also

in the largest specimens seen, 9% in length.

On the abactinal side they are arranged as

vn

in pusillus, only I have been unable to dis-
cern with certainty such pores within the
petals. The genital pores I have found de-
veloped in a specimen only 2°8™™ in length;
on the other hand I have also seen a speci-
men of 4™™ length with as yet no traces of
genital openings. Large genital papille may

be developed.

Fig. 2. Dental apparatus of Echinocyamus, 7m,
a Ech. grandiporus, 6 Ech. pusitlus, 17).

The tuberculation is somewhat less
close than in fzsz//us, and the glassy protube-
rances among the tubercles are likewise less numerous, but, on the other hand, they are more promi-
nent being considerably higher than the primary tubercles; they are striated, ending in a knob, almost
like the mamelon of a tubercle, which is, however, not perforated, since no spine is articulated to it.
(Pl. XII. Fig. 14.) This seems, however, to be a rather inconstant feature, and in any case it is very
indistinct in less well preserved specimens.

The supporting ridges of the interior of the test (Pl. XII. Fig. 3) are less strongly developed
than in pzsillus, not proceeding to the auricles as in the latter species, but ending some way out-
side the auricles, which are also more distant from the edge of the peristome than in fzszddws. (Comp.
Pl. XII. Fig. 3 and 29.) It will be seen that the figure given in «Revision of Echini» Pl. XIII. 7 is
much more in accordance with the figure given here of grandiporus than with that of pusz//ws, though
not quite agreeing with this figure either. The depressions along the ambulacral sutures are much
less prominent than in fzsz//s. — In accordance with the place of the auricles the dental apparatus
is considerably larger than in pusz//us, as shown in Fig. 2, which represents the dental apparatus of
specimens of 7™ length of fzsillus and grandiporus. Both agree in having it unequally developed

5

ECHINOIDEA. II.

36

the pyramid (5) of the odd posterior interambulacrum being considerably larger than the others. (Comp.
Lovén. Echinologica. p. 69).

The spines are a little longer than in fwszllus, the largest being ca. 1™™, and more slender.
They are provided with only a few serrations and end in rather a slender point. (Pl. XII. Fig. 15.) The
miliary spines are only about one third as long as the primary ones. They are a little slenderer than
those of puszllus, often slightly serrate near the upper end. The endcrown is a little larger than in
pusillus; the longitudinal ribs are more widened at their upper end, almost joining with their edges,
and the radial plates are larger and broader, generally with 4—5 serrations, sometimes in a double
series. (Pl. XII. Figs. ro, 16). — The pedicellariz also differ rather considerably from those of pzszdlus.
The ophicephalous pedicellariz differ from those of Azsz//ws in having fewer serrations along the edge
of the blade, otherwise the shape and structure is the same as in that species. (Pl. XII. Figs. 8, 11—13).
The tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XII. Figs. 25, 28) are gradually narrowed towards the articular surface,
whereas in puszllus they narrow abruptly at the lower end of the blade. The triphyllous pedicellariz
(Pl. XII, Fig. 21) have a much broader blade than in fzszl/us, and the edge is much more closely ser-
rate; they are very small, the head only ca. o1o4™™. — The buccal tube-feet are not distinctly larger
than the other actinal tube-feet. Spicules are wanting as in puszdlus.

To this species so well distinguished by its large ocular pores, little developed petals, few
actinal pores, as well as by its spines and pedicellarize, belong all the specimens of «&chinocyamus
pusillus» from the «Blake» and «Albatross» which I have seen (viz. from «Blake» St. 5 and 239,
Albatross» St. 2352, 2666 and 2668), as well as the specimens from the «Challenger» St. 122 (examined
in the British Museum); a pair of specimens dredged by myself in 500 fathoms off Frederiksted, St.
Cruz, also belong to this species. Probably all the specimens of Echzmocyamus recorded from the West
Indies and Florida (and Brazil) under the name of «fzszldus» will turn out to belong to this species
(and perhaps partly to the following species). In any case the existence of Ech. pusillus in these
regions must remain doubtful, until by renewed careful examination it is proved beyond doubt to
exist there besides Echinocyamus grandiporus. 1 have further seen rather numerous specimens of this
species from the Azores from depths of ca. 100—7o0o0 fathoms (1365 m.) and from the Josephine Bank
(1r0—430 fathoms).

The occurrence of this species on both sides of the Atlantic is in good harmony with the dis-
tribution of other Echinoids, e. g. Genoctdaris maculata, Cidarts affinis a. 0. — and likewise it would
not be contrary to these facts of geographical distribution, if Ach. peszllus should turn out to occur
in the West Indian Seas; it must only be emphasized that it cannot be considered as an established
fact, before the specimens of grandiporus (and possibly also of macrostomus) are distinguished from the
true pusillus by renewed examination.

Echinocyamus macrostomus n. sp. The shape of the test (Pl. XII. Figs. 17, 24) is very like
that of grandiporus, a little more elongated, but not so much that it can be relied upon as a specific
character. The peristome is generally very large; there is, however, some variation in this respect,
but I have always found it considerably larger than in specimens of grandiporus of a corresponding
size. The edge of the peristome is not incurved; the buccal membrane is devoid of spicules as in the

other species. The anal opening is generally larger and nearer the edge of the test than in ygvandt-

ECHINOIDEA. II. 27

porus. The apical system differs from that of gvandiporus in the ocular pores being much smaller than
the genital pores as is the case in fwszd/ws. ‘The madreporic plate is generally larger than in gvandi-
porus, otherwise it is elevated as in that species and the genital pores are likewise covered with long
genital papille. Also in this species I have seen one specimen with 5 distinct genital pores. The pe-
tals are very slightly developed, even scarcely so much as in grandiporus, as seen by the following
table. The genital pores I find developed in the specimen of 4™™, while in that of 42™ they have
not vet appeared and in the specimen of 48" (the one figured) only the anterior pair is developed.
As regards the arrangement of the actinal pores, the tuberculation, the structure of pedicellarice
and spines as well as the internal structure of the test I do not find any reliable differences from grandi-
porus. (Pl. XII. Figs. 2 and 7 represent an ophicephalous and a triphyllous pedicellaria of this species.)
The colour of the living animal is, according to the sketch made on board the «Valdivia»,
green; there are ten darker radiating bands, answering to the bands of tube-feet, the intermediate
spaces having a slight yellowish tint; around the peristome there is a darker pentagon, radiating a

little into the ambulacra.
Number of pairs of pores in /chino-

To this species belongs the specimen referred to Lchinocya- cyamus macrostomus
4 a; 5 ~~ ee “a i , ererio Anterc Postero-
mus pusillus from the German Deep-Sea Expedition, St. 37, 1694 m. Sie Sovener tateral lateral
5 é é ‘ Petals Petals
(off Cape Verde. Doderlein op. cit. p. 234), and the twospecimens 2. nm is rae pee
F face - aa Dia
from the «Travailleur» 2100 m., which I received from the Paris- liao 2 2-3 3
; } Dh = I—2 1—2 I—2
Museum. Further, among the specimens sent me by Professor ay 1—2 I—2 ee
= ay F 5 Ko , 6:8 - 2 2 2—3
Koehler two specimens from 37° 54' Lat. N. 27° 3’ Long. W. 2178 m. oe ; 4 7% ae
(off the Azores), three specimens (the Azores, 1360 m.), one living speci- Cras I 1—2 2
yr 5 = I I—2 2—23
men and some dead tests from 32° Lat. N. 16° Long. W. 2286 m., and one 18 ; 3 mit) oe
specimen from 39° Lat. N. 32° Long. W. 1600 m. belong to this species. — — +?._—- 0 1 1
4 - o—! o—!I I—2

The species is then evidently a more abyssal species than gvandiporus.

I have been in considerable doubt as to whether this form ought to be established as a sepa-
rate species or not. It is beyond doubt that it is very closely related to Ech. grandiporus, from which
species it is distinguished only by the small size of the ocular pores and the large size of the peri-
stome, other small differences being too inconstant to be relied upon as specific characters. The
two features pointed out are, however, so conspicuous and so far as my experience goes constant,
that it seems quite necessary to keep this form separate, as the bathymetrical distribution seems also
to indicate its specific difference from grandiporus. Otherwise it is evidently of no great importance
whether it is regarded as a variety only of the latter species or as a separate species; the main thing
is that it should not be merely confounded with the typical grandiporus — not to mention pzsedles
with which it was hitherto confounded, but to which it is not so nearly related.

Perhaps yet another species of Achinocyamus will prove to occur in the Atlantic. Among the
specimens from the «Josephina» and among those from the Azores sent me by Professor Koehler
there are a few small specimens, which look rather different from the other species. They agree with
pusillus in the shape of the test, the small size of the ocular pores and in the petals. But the pri-
mary tubercles are larger than is generally the case in fzszd/us, and the scrobicular area is more

deepened. Further, it may be noticed that the tubercle is placed excentrically at the anterior side of

28 ECHINOIDEA. II.

the scrobicular area. Miliary tubercles are scarce, the primary ones leaving but little room for them.
Perhaps these curious small specimens represent merely an individual abnormality; from the few

small naked tests to hand it is impossible to decide the question.

In his «Note sur le genre Echinocyamus»' Lambert calls attention to the fact that the
species figured under the name of Echinocyamus by van Phelsum? are not of the flat form to
which the name is now applied, but of the high form which is designated by the name /7dalaria
Lamarck. Accordingly these two names should be exchanged and used in a way contrary to what
has for so very long been the general use. «Pour rejeter mes conclusions il faudrait a la fois attribuer
seulement A Leske, et malgré lui, la paternité du genre Echinocyamus, prendre pour type de ce genre
une forme que le savant commentateur de Klein n’y rattachait que d'une facon accessoire et exclure
du genre Fibularia la seule espéce authentique que Lamarck y ait placée. Triple résultat qui me
parait inadmissible.» (Op. cit). Cotteaus objects thereto that, since the specimens of v. Phelsum
had been collected in America and the Adriatic Gulf, flat forms must have been among his «species»,
as «les Fibularia, propres 4 la mer des Indes, n’ont jamais été rencontrés sur les cotes de PAmérique
et encore moins dans le golfe Adriatique, ot abondent les Echinocyamus». Further, the figures given
by v. Phelsum «laissent assurément a désirer; dans le grossissement elles sont pour la plupart ren-
flées @une maniére exagérée», — «Autant il nous parait nécessaire, lorsque les faits sont positifs et
indiscutables, de revenir au principe de l’antériorité, qui doit toujours étre respecté, autant il serait
dangereux, quand la question est douteuse et sujette a controverse, d’adopter des modifications qui
nauraient d’autre résultat que d’apporter une grande perturbation dans la nomenclature et de compliquer
la synonymie». Also de Loriol4 agrees with Cotteau in this question, and I for my part cannot
see, but that Cotteau and de Loriol are right. The figures of v. Phelsum are, indeed, so bad and
quite unlike either the flat or the high form, that they seem to me quite insufficient to support
such an extremely unhappy change of names. The fact that some of his specimens came from the
Adriatic is a proof that the flat form was among his «species», and some of the figures also seem to
represent this flat torm. The figures in the two first columns are indeed, in my opinion, much more
like the flat forms (except the two first figures, which are, however, still less like the elongated /vda-
Jarza-torms); those in the third column (side views) are somewhat more like the high form, though
always very badly representing the true shape of the test of the high forms; the figures of the end-
views of all his 14 «species» are so very much alike that it would be impossible to point out which belong
to the flat and which to the high form. Lambert, indeed, thinks that all his figures represent only
fourteen scarcely different specimens of a single species. After all it seems to me that the only thing
which is certain in this question is, that the flat form is represented among van Phelsums species,
and being from the Adriatic Sea (as van Phelsum himself states p. 36) it must even be Achinocya-
mus pusillus, the only species found there. Whether the high form is really represented by any of his

species» must remain doubtful, though by a mere glance at his figures one might at first be induced

« Bull. Soc. géol. de France. 3 Sér. XIX. 1891. p. 749.

grief aan Cornelius Nozeman over de gewelw-slekken of Zee-Egeln. 1774.
3 Paléontologie Francaise. Terrain Tertiaire. II. Echinides. 1894. p. 349.
+ Notes pour servir A l'étude des Echinodermes. V. 1897. p. 8.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 39

to refer them all to the high form. Only in case all the «species» of v. Phelsum were beyond doubt
of the high form, would it be necessary to change the names Echinocyamus and Fibularia; but this
is so far from being the case that perhaps they all really belong to the flat form. Accordingly it
would not only be a very unfortunate thing to change the names Fehinocyamus and /vbularia, but it
would even be wrong and contrary to the rules of priority to do so. It may be considered as certain
that Echinocyamus pusillus is among the «species» of van Phelsum, since some of his specimens
came from the Adriatic, and if Lambert is right — as I think he is — in regarding all the 14
species» of Echinocyamus figured by van Phelsum as one species only, they are all Achinocyamus
pustllus. I agree that from the three last columns of the plates in van Phelsum’s old book and —
perhaps — from some of the descriptions it might seem to be the high form which is represented;
but the two first columns in any case resemble much better the flat form, and above all the locali-
ties given by van Phelsum prove definitely that they cannot represent the high form, because only
flat forms occur in the Adriatic and at America. It is then only the bad drawing which makes the
figures in the three last columns (sidewiew, endview and from below) look like the high form. But to
ascribe such importance to some evidently quite impossible figures as to found thereupon a most
unhappy change of names universally used, against the (in this case) quite certain deduction from the

localities, seems to me unjustifiable, and I must protest against such a proceeding with all my force.

Suborder Meridosternata.

Fam. Urechinide.

19. Urechinus naresianus A. Ag.
Pl. VI. Figs. 1o—11. Pl. VII. Figs. 6, 8.13, 15. Pl. IX. Figs. 4, 8—g, 15—16, 18, 21, 26, 29— 39.

A. Agassiz: «Challenger»-Echinoidea. p. 146. Pl. XXIX. Figs. 1—4. Pl. XXX. XXXa. Figs. 1--4.
Pl. XXXIX. Figs. 29—30. Pl. XL. Figs. 56—58. — «Blake»-Echinoidea. p. 52. Pl. XX VI. 1—3. — Panamic
Deep-Sea Echini. p. 156. Pl. 58.5. 60.4—5. 74.6—8. — Lovén: On Pourtalesia. p. go. Pl. VIIL 56. PI.
XXI. — Duncan: Revision of the genera of Echinoidea (132) p.211—12. — Bell: Echinoderma found
off the Coast of South Africa. I. Echinoidea. (Marine Investigations in South Africa. III. 1904.) p. 173.

The structure of the test of this highly interesting Echinoid has been so well worked out by
Agassiz and Lovén that very little can be added in this respect. I only wish to call attention to
the fact that the inner edge of the plates round the peristome is somewhat thickened (Fig. 3) as
pointed out for Cystechinus by Agassiz. (Comp. e.g. Pl. 78.5. Panamic Deep-Sea Ech.) The irregularity
in the specimen figured Pl. VI. Fig. 10, the plate II. b.3 having two pores, 4 none, is worth noticing,
though, of course, only an individual abnormality.

The rich material from the «Ingolf» includes some young specimens, so that I am able to give
some information of the changes due to growth in this species.

The youngest specimen taken by the «Ingolf» is 3™™ in length. Unfortunately it is impossible
to find out the relations of the apical system in this small specimen; on account of its extreme frag-

ility I have been unable to remove the spines completely without destroying the test, and I have not

ECHINOIDEA. II.

40

succeeded in making clear the limits of the plates, either by treating it with alcohol-glycerine, mount-
ing it in Canada balsam or drying it. The most prominent feature of the specimen is the position of
the anal area, almost in the middle of the abactinal side. The subanal fasciole is faintly indicated;
the spines are rather long, equalling in length the diameter of the test.
The pedicellariz are like those of the adult specimens, viz. the globiferous
and small ophicephalous (see below), other kinds not being found. The
peristomial tubefeet are already penicillate.

The next size represented is 7:5™™ in length. Here the anal area
has reached near to the posterior end of the test, three pairs of plates
being developed above it in the unpaired interambulacrum; the ventral

side, however, projects still a little beyond the anal area, the posterior

end of the test thus sloping a little downwards and outwards, whereas in

Fig. 3. Uvechinus naresianus. — later stages it is vertically cut, and in grown specimens the posterior end
Peristome and adjoining part : : ; ae
omuthennsider 2m slopes downwards and inwards, the abactinal side projecting over the anal

area, till at last the anal area is almost on the flat actinal side. The fi-
gure 4 shows the position of the anal area in the different stages. — The plastron and bivium in
this specimen of 75™" has upon the whole the same form and relations as in the grown specimens.

The subanal fasciole is distinctly developed. The apical system is essentially as in the grown

specimens. — In the next stages I find no important changes to
bs ras 3mm - . .
cS, notice. They become gradually higher, however, there is a rather
( \. Gees great variation in the height in grown specimens, as remarked by
ee) ba) es ; : : :
—<—$__ Agassiz. The displacement of the periproct gives the most promi-
} nent change. The genital openings appear rather late; I have not
13 mer = = >)
\ seen them in specimens smaller than 22™™, but sometimes they do
ee ee
PEE SSS not develop till later, thus there is no trace of them in a specimen
i an - 2 re . . .
Ve ee of 27"™. The genital pores (three in all the specimens) are covered
( ) by very conspicuous genital papilla. — It may be noticed that the
\ a sees
Se plates show the same marks of growth and radiating ridges as de-
ma > i. cr = ~ > = S09 2
ve ne : seribed and figured from Cystechinus Wyvillit by Agassiz (Chall.
SR mm % Z ; -
, oa Ech. Pl. XXIX. b. 9), though not so distinct as in that species; the
Nv same feature has been made known for the fossil Echimocorys ciply-
( ) ensis by Lambert
\ _ fo The primary spines (Pl. IX. Fig. 30) are very slender, the
Fig. 4. Outlines in profil of different longest ones found are ca. 5™™; they are almost all broken on all

stages of Urechinus naresianus, show- the specimens except the smallest, in which they are as long as the
ing the change in the position of the ; 7 ;
anal system. diameter of the test. They are smooth in the lower part, somewhat

spinous in the outer part, terminating in a short, oblique thorn. Those of

the actinal plastron are, judging from the very few unbroken ones found, a little flattened at the point, but
not widened. The clavulee of the fasciole are like the miliary spines (Pl. IX. Fig. 31) covering the ab-

' Etude monographique sur le genre Echinocorys. (Mém. Mus. R. d@hist. nat. de Belgique. II. 1903. p. 28.)

EKCHINOIDEA. II. 41

actinal side, only a little shorter and clad with a thicker skin. The spines upon and around the peri-
stome are somewhat clubshaped (Pl. IX. Fig. 39); the base of the primary spines is rather large; it
seems somewhat exaggerated in the «Chall.»-Ech. Pl. XXX. Fig. 20 — the Fig. 21 of the same plate,
representing a miliary spine, according to the explanation of the plate, it is better not to speak of.

In the specimen of 7°5™™ the primary tubercles form, on the abactinal side, an almost regular
vertical series in each row of plates, the tubercles being placed in the middle of the plates. In later
stages other tubercles grow larger than the «primary» ones, thus obscuring the vertical arrangement,
and it even sometimes looks as if the true «primary» tubercles have become resorbed'.

In grown specimens the arrangement of the large tubercles is quite irregular, as described by
Agassiz. In the «Challenger»-Ech. p. 147 Agassiz remarks that in some specimens there may be
rudimentary bourrelets. I have seen the same thing. The Figures ro and 11, Pl. VI represent the
actinal side of two specimens, one with a very distinct bourrelet, the other with scarcely a trace of it.
Also in U. giganteus this feature 1s found (Panamic Deep-Sea Ech. p.155) though not so distinctly
developed, judging from the figure (PI. 73.1) to which reference is made.

The tube-feet may be quite devoid of spicules, or with a single series of simple, somewhat spinous
rods with rounded ends (Pl. 1X. Fig.8) in the actinal, penicillate tube-feet as well as in the simple
abactinal feet; in the lower part of the tube-foot they are generally more irregular, more or less
branched. The peculiar fenestrate rods of the filaments have been figured by Lovén (On Pourtalesia.
Pl. VIII. 46); they are, however, less fenestrate than shown there. No supporting skeletal plates are
found below the rods of the filaments in the actinal tube-feet. The frontal tube-feet are simple, without
a sucking disc (rosette), not differing from those of the other ambulacra. No large, specially developed
subanal tube-feet.

Two sorts of pedicellariz are figured by Agassiz («Challenger»-Ech. Pl. XXX. 22—24), viz.
tridentate («large trifid longstemmed pedicellarize») and ophicephalous («shorter roundheaded pedi-
cellarize», in the explanation of the plates called «clubshaped pedicellarize with heavy-stemmed articula-
tion»). I find five different kinds of pedicellariz in this species, viz. globiferous, tridentate (two sorts),
triphyllous and ophicephalous pedicellarie.

The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. IX. Fig. 35) have a rather conspicuous cap of evidently glan-
dular skin, thickening especially over the point of the valves. The latter (Pl. IX. Fig. 9) are very char-
acteristic; the blade is a closed tube ending in a large opening surrounded usually by nine long,
slender gracefully curved teeth, one of which is median in the outer edge. The basal part is large,

rounded; no neck. The stalk consists of long, thin calcareous fibres, connected only above and below;

« Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Ech. p. 153, 159—60, 166) has found such resorption to occur in Uvrechinus giganteus
and Cystechinus, as also in Peleopneustes and Linopneustes; he sees therein a proof of «the constant struggle that must exist
for the deposition of needed carbonate of lime» ... «The least disorder in the growing tissue of any part of the test evidently
affecting at once the active deposition of the carbonate of lime of that region». I may, however, remark that the tubercles
of these forms are very easily broken off. It is quite easy, as I have tried myself, in this way to produce all the different
stages of «resorption» figured by Professor Agassiz (especially Pl. 86. 2). The suggestion therefore does not seem unreason-
able that at least part of what Professor Agassiz thinks to be the result of a resorption is, indeed, only the result of the
animals having been «badly rubbed» in the dredge or otherwise. That the empty place of such a primary tubercle may be
covered by a pigmented skin (as I have seen it very distinctly in a specimen of Powrtalesia Jeffreyst) is no proof of a res-
orption having occurred; it may as well be the result of some injury, by which the spine and tubercle was lost some
time before.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 6

ECHINOIDEA. II.

it may be very long, up to 3™™ (in a specimen from the Cape, German South Polar Expedition, it
reaches a length of 5™™). These pedicellarize are found almost exclusively on the abactinal side.

The tridentate pedicellaria, which occur mainly on the actinal side, are of two kinds; one of
them is rather slender, the head reaching scarcely a size of o5™™. (Pl. IX. Figs. 33—34, 36, 38). The
valves join in their outer half; the lower part is narrowed, sometimes even for some distance forming
a closed tube. There is, however, in this respect great variation; sometimes the valves join over
almost their whole length. The edge is distinctly serrate, and there may be a rather long tooth at
the point (in the Cape specimens, only slightly developed in the specimens from the «Ingolf»). The
neck is well developed, the stalk compact. The other somewhat larger and coarser form (Pl. IX. Figs.
15—16, 32) which mainly occurs on the actinal side and at the periproct has the basal part very
strongly developed, much larger than the blade; generally there is only a very slight narrowing be-
tween the basal part and the blade, sometimes, however, there is a rather deep sinuation. The edge
of the blade is very thick, finely serrate. There is a slightly developed neck, and the stalk is a little
widened at the upper end. This form, especially those with a deeper sinuation between the blade and
the basal part, reminds one very much of the short tridentate pedicellariz of Spatangus etc. That they
are really tridentate pedicellarize is evident from Cystechinus clypeatus, 11 which species all transitional
forms between such short coarse forms and the more slender forms are found. The triphyllous pedi-
cellariz have the blade a little elongate, finely serrate along the whole edge. (Pl. IX. Fig. 26). They
are not distinctly different from small tridentate pedicellariz, in which the valves are hardly narrowed
in the lower part of the blade.

The ophicephalous pedicellarize are generally exceedingly numerous, sometimes literally covering
the test on the abactinal side. They are of the typical spatangoid form (Pl. IX. Fig. 18, 37); there is
no neck, the lowermost and largest arc resting directly on the cup-shaped upper end of the stalk.
The blade has a rounded deepening, the edges are thick, widened somewhat wingshaped, finely ser-
rate down to the apophysis, where they join. The basal part is narrower than the blade. The lower-
most are has a small prolongation at the point. The edge of the cup on the upper end of the stalk
is simple, not deeply sinuate as in the figure in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea. — The spheeridize are
rather elongate, more or less spinous; they may proceed to the 4th ambulacral plate in the bivium.

Of the internal anatomy the figures 6, 8, 13 and 15, Pl. VII give some information. There is a
well developed diverticulum and two siphones intestinales, the second, shorter one not separated from
the intestine. (In the «Challenger»-Echinoidea Pl. XXIX. b. 8 is figured the intestine of Cystechinus
Wella, but neither diverticulum nor siphones are seen there. This would, indeed, be so very sur-
prising a difference between so nearly related forms that it may be allowed to suppose that a closer
examination will show these structures to occur also in Cystech. Wyvillit, and probably in all the U7-
echinide). —— The stone canal is directed backwards on its way to the abactinal side, then passing a
rather long way forwards along the abactinal side to the madreporic plate. The axial organ is very
inconspicuous. The genital organs are rather small; those in Fig. 6. Pl. VII are full of nearly ripe eggs
which are ca. o'4™™ in diameter.

This species was taken by the «Ingolf> at the following stations:

ECHNIOIDEA. II. 43

St. 18 (61° 44’ Lat. N. 30° 29’ Long. W. 1136 fathoms 3°0 C. Bottom temp.) 23 spec.
— 36 (61°50 — 56°21) — 1435 — ToS = eye
NT NESE ae SCE A Ret YS a - 39; —
— 39 (62°00 — 22°38 — 865 — 2°9 — lupe
— 40 (62°00 — a2r°366 — 845 — 383 — eer
— 76 (60°50. — 26°50 — 806 — 4°1 ) 1 —
—- 83 (62° 255 — 28°30° — gI20 — 3°5 3

The species was hitherto recorded only from the dredgings of the «Challenger», «Blake and
the Cape investigations (Bell. Op. cit). Regarding the specimens from the «Challenger» Duncan
(loc. cit.) has thrown doubt on their being all really U. zaresianus. «It must be admitted that the shape
and details of U. Naresz .... given in the «Challenger» Report, Pl. XXIX, XXX, XXX a. are not those
of one species. Some forms have and others have not a subanal fasciole; and these last are, moreover,
(as Lovén has pointed out), without the peculiar arrangement of the pores of the postero-lateral am-
bulacra in the subanal region, which is seen invariably with a true subanal fasciole. It may be that
there are two groups of forms, one without and the other with a subanal fasciole, and yet closely
allied, as in the instance of A@icraster and Epiaster; or the fasciole may be so small in the area which
it surrounds, that it does not interfere with the ambulacra. The final solution of these questions must
be left to the distinguished author of the Report on the «Challenger»-Echini>. — Also Lambert
(Echinocorys. p. 29. Note) is of opinion that the specimens with a distinct fasciole are specifically
distinct from those without a fasciole. — Lovén (On Pourtalesia. p.91) points out that the ambulacral
plates I.a.4 and V.b.4 are «slightly expanded interiorly, so as to fill up the feeble re-entering angle
offered by the corresponding plates of the posterior interradium, a structure commonly met with also
in Holaster and other Meridosterni, and in the Prymnadetes, that is, in forms devoid of a subanal
fasciola, and in no wise to be compared with the well known wedge-shaped, extended plates 6+ x,
present in all Prymnodesmic Spatangidz. Its deficiency in Urechinus is a sure sign of the absence of
a subanal fasciola, of which not one of the several specimens carefully examined showed the least
trace. There is, close under the periproct, a dense accumulation of ordinary miliary tubercles, not un-
like that seen in the same position in some Brissi; it has no relation to the fasciola». — Contempora-
neously Agassiz in the «Blake»-Echini p. 52 states that the structure of the subanal fasciole in U7-
echinus «assumes all the stages of development intermediate between a well defined subanal plastron

. and a stage in which the fasciole is indicated merely by irregular accumulations of miliary tu-
bercles. So that the genus Urechinus is the representative of the oldest Spatangoids .... in which the
subanal fasciole (the only one existing) is still in process of formation».

Though Duncan thus reserves the final solution of these questions for Professor Agassiz, I
may be allowed to set forth a few remarks thereon. I must fully join Professor Agassiz in his state-
ment about the fasciole; I likewise find all transitional stages between a distinct fasciole and no

traces at all of a fasciole, even in specimens from the same locality. Moreover, I find that in young

1 The two specimens from St. 39 and 4o differ somewhat in shape from the other specimens, the test being lower
and more regularly rounded. The peristome is somewhat smaller than usual, and the secondary tubercles perhaps a little
more prominent and numerous. Otherwise I do not find any difference. Unfortunately they are both almost denuded so that
I have been unable to find any globiferous pedicellarize on them. There can, however, scarcely be any doubt that they are
really U. narestanus.

SHIN ATH
44 ECHINOIDEA

specimens the fasciole is generally distinct, whereas in larger specimens it gradually becomes less
distinct on account of numerous small miliary spines, like those of the fasciole, developing between
the primary spines on the adjacent part of the plastron. Lovén is scarcely right in maintaining that
the extension of plates I.a.4 and V.b.4 can in no wise be compared with the extension of plates I.a
6x and V.b.6. +x. in Prymnodesmic Spatangidz. It is a fact of importance for this question that
in Brissopsts (Toxobrissus) pacifica and the species elongata described below the first extended plate
is not the 6th but the 7th — a case unknown to Lovén!'; had he known this, he would probably not
have laid so much stress on the numero 6. I think it not unreasonable to conclude that, when the
subanal fasciole of the Prymnodesmic Spatangidee includes sometimes the plates I.a.7 + x and V.b.7
+x instead of 6+ x (and nobody will doubt the homology of the fasciole and extension of plates in
this case), it may also be possible to regard a fasciole including only the extension of plates I.a.4 and
V.b.4 as homologous with that of the Prymnodesmic Spatangidee* — and that likewise will hold
good for the extension of this plate, in case the fasciole is wanting, whether it has disappeared with
age or was never formed. That only one plate extends so as to reach within the fasciole cannot be
against the homology. In the young Lchinocardium cordatum likewise only one plate extends within
the fasciole, viz. the 6th, as is described below. The fact that only one plate extends within the fasciole
in U. naresianus thus evidently marks the fasciole of this species as being very primitive and of
an embryonal character. — Otherwise, if it be right what Lambert (Etudes sur le plastron des
Spatangides) and de Meijere («Siboga»-Ech. p. 153) maintain that the Amphisterni have not devel-
oped from the Meridosterni, (aud I, for my part, am fully convinced that they are right herein), the
fasciole evidently will have developed independently in each group, and it is thus not surprising to
find some differences in its relations in the two groups. Be that as it will, it is certain that the forms
without a subanal fasciole agree exactly with those provided with a fasciole in the structure of the
ambulacra of the bivium; there cannot be distinguished two groups, one without, the other with a
subanal fasciole, as was suggested by Duncan.

Nevertheless Duncan was certainly right in suggesting that Agassiz has confounded two
species under his Uvrechinus naresianus in the «Challenger»-Report. On an examination of the speci-
mens of Urech. naresianus in the British Museum I find that those from St. 158 are not really that
species; their globiferous pedicellarize differ so considerably from those of xavestanus, that they can
certainly not belong to this species; they agree exactly with those of Cystech. Wywillii (comp. below
p. 49). Probably these specimens will prove to belong to this latter species; since, however, Cyst. Lovent
and Urech. giganteus also have similar globiferous pedicellariz, I shall not try to decide to which
species these specimens really belong, but be satisfied with having shown that they are not xareszanus.

As pointed out by Lovén it is the 4th ambulacral plate in the series I.a and V.b which ex-
pands internally to meet the episternal angle, and this is a very constant feature. Among the nume-
rous specimens I have examined, I have found only two exceptions: in one case the plate I.a.1 is
abnormally divided into two plates with one tentacle each, the plate with the episternal prolongation

'‘ Also in Micraster coranguinum there is some irregularity in this respect, it being the V.b.5 which reaches the
fasciole according to the analysis of the test given in Lovén’s: Etudes. Pl. XXXIII.

* In Urechinus giganteus it is the 6th plate which is extended (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini. p. 154. Fig. 221); no fasciole,
however, has been observed in this species.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 45
thus being number 5; in another case it is the plate V.b.5 which is expanded, but the 4th plate just
touches the episternal plate 5.a.3. — Now on the Figure 2, Pl. XXX.a of the «Challenger»-Echinoidea
it is seen to be the 5th or 6th plate which thus expands; neither is the fig.g on this plate in accord-
ance with the rule. This would seem to prove that the specimens represented in these figures cannot
be xaresianus (Agassiz also doubts himself, whether the specimen represented in Figs. 1—6 is cor-
rectly referred to U. marestanus («Chall.»-Ech. p.147) and since in U. giganteus it is the 6th ambula-
cral plate which expands, the suggestion les at hand that they belong perhaps to this species. On a
careful examination of the specimen represented in Figs. 1—6, however, I find the plastron of the
same structure as in varvestanus, the 4th ambulacral plate being expanded. The difference in the struc-
ture of the plastron from the normal condition shown in Pl. XXX.a Fig. 2 is due to incorrect drawing.
(It is beyond doubt that it is really the specimen, figured in the quoted figures, which I have examined;
it quite agrees otherwise with the figures, and also the size agrees — it is ca. 28™ in diameter, and
the figures represent it twice magnified; it is from St.146.) That this specimen is only an abnormal
U. narestanus, as stated by Agassiz (op.cit. p.148), I think quite certain. — As for the figure 9.
Pl. XXX. a. it is so indistinct in the delimitation of the plates that it is certainly allowable to suggest
that it is also incorrectly drawn.

The specimens from St. 302, which I have likewise examined in the British Museum, differ
somewhat from the Atlantic specimens of vareszanus in regard to the pedicellarize. The ophicephalous
pedicellarize (Pl. IX. Fig. 4) have shorter and broader valves, and likewise the coarse form of tridentate
pedicellarize (Pl. IX. Fig. 21) is somewhat different, being more slender than in the Atlantic specimens.
On the other hand, the globiferous pedicellariz are like those of zaresianus, and likewise the structure
of the plastron is the same. Perhaps on a careful comparison with the Atlantic specimens this form
will prove to be a distinct species; the differences in the pedicellarize pointed out here are, however,
certainly too small for founding a new species upon them alone.

The geographical and bathymetrical distribution of U. naresianus has thus to be somewhat
restricted; it is stated in the «Challenger»-Report (p. 218) to occur, from «Marion Island to Kerguelen
to Australia; Juan Fernandez to Straits of Magellan; Caribbean Islands», at a depth of 1200—1800
fathoms (on p. 255 it is stated to occur at 422 fathoms at the Caribbean Islands). In reality the species
is as yet known with full certainty only from the Atlantic and off South Africa (Marion Island), from
depths of 422—1715 fathoms.

A few remarks may be given here on Uvechinus giganteus Ag. which I had occasion to exa-
mine in the U. S. National Museum, only some fragments, to be sure, but determined by Professor
Agassiz himself. (<Albatross» St. 3431.) The structure of the test has been most carefully worked out
by Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini. p. 152), but no mention is made there of the pedicellariz.
They prove to be very characteristic. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. IX. Figs. 2,6) differ considerably
from those of xarestanus; the blade is an elongate, rather thick tube, which has a large, oval opening
on the inside at the point, with 1—3 slender teeth on each side at the outer end; the basal part is
comparatively small. The valves are invested with a thick skin, not especially thickened over the
point, as is the case in waresianus. (Probably there will be some kind of glands within the large

tube). The stalk as in sarestanus. The ophicephalous pedicellariee are somewhat more elongate, the

46 ECHINOIDEA. II.

basal part less developed and the blade more rounded than in xaresianus; also the arrangement of
the teeth along the edge is somewhat different. (Pl. IX. Fig. 11.) The tridentate pedicellarize (PI. IX.
Figs. 25, 27), both larger and smaller forms, are more open than in naresianus, (I have seen nothing corre-
sponding to the coarse form of tridentate pedicellarize); also the triphyllous pedicellarize (Pl. IX. Fig. 12)
differ a little from those of the former species, being a little broader. — The miliary spines are like
those of warestanus; the primary spines are smooth in the lower part as in that species; if the outer
part is also as in waresianus, I cannot say, having seen only broken spines.
The genus Cystechinus is evidently very nearly related to Urechimus, in fact, I am unabie to see
how to distinguish these two genera, as hitherto understood. The «diagnoses» of the two genera in the
Challenger»-Report (p. 146, 148) do not precisely indicate the differences; the only distinguishing character
which may be gathered from these descriptions of the genera is «the rudimentary auricles, the raised
edge of the actinal opening» mentioned for Cystechinus. This feature, highly interesting indeed and
important from a morphological point of view, as pointed out by Agassiz, is, however, found fully
as distinctly developed in Urechinus naresianus (Fig. 3). This character cannot thus be used for dis-
tinguishing the two genera. I am likewise unable to find in the elaborate diagnoses of the genera
given by Duncan (Revision p.212—13) and by Gregory' any distinguishing feature of reasonable
importance. In all the more important features they agree: structure of ambulacra and interambulacra,
sternum, actinal and apical system, tube-feet, spines and general shape of the test. The only characters
I can find, which might be taken into consideration for distinguishing them as different genera are
the following: a subanal fasciole is generally found in young specimens of U. warestanus, whereas it
is not found in Cystechinus; but in larger specimens of U. xarestanus the fasciole has generally dis-
appeared, even so fully that Lovén could find in the structure of the test a sure sign of the total
absence of the fasciole, and in U. giganteus it is not found either. On the other hand it seems to be
found in Cystech. clypeatus, since according to Agassiz («Challenger»-Ech. p. 149) «the edge of the
test adjoining the anal system is thickly covered by miliaries forming a broad band, with an indistinct
outer edge (almost a fasciole) surrounding it». — The position of the periproct is below the ambitus
in Cystechinus (unknown in C. clypeatus); in U. naresianus it is generally not quite below the ambitus,
but the difference is, indeed, very slight, and in U. gigantews it seems to be quite as in Cystechinus.
Finally I may notice the difference in the structure of the pedicellaria, especially the globiferous —
but if the genera were to be founded upon the structure of the globiferous pedicellariz, we would
have to make U. xaresianus the type of one genus, to unite U. gzganteus, Cystech. Wyvillit and Lovent
in another genus, further to make a separate genus of Uvech. Drygalskyi? and a fourth genus of
C. clypeatus. 1 think Professor Agassiz would be the first to object against founding these genera
on the differences in the globiferous pedicellariz alone, and I for my part do not hold that necessary
either. But then the conclusion is inevitable that the genera Urechinus and Cystechinus cannot be
distinguished as hitherto understood. Cystechinus then becomes a synonym of Uvechinus, or in any
case the species C. Wyvillii and Lovend must be transferred to Urechinus. Probably the C. clypeatus
(or one of the species confounded under that name) will prove to make a separate genus, which will
then keep the name Cystechinus. The Cystech. vesica has recently been removed by Agassiz himself

* Cystechinus crassus, a new Species from the Radiolarian Marls at Barbados. Quarterly Journ. Geol. Soc. 1889. p. 640.
* Th. Mortensen: Some new species of Echinoidea. Vidensk. Medd. Naturh. Foren. Kobenhavn. 1905. p. 241.

ECHINOIDEA. IL 47

(Panamic Deep-Sea Ech. p. 163) to the genus /Pilematechinus established there for Cystech. Rathbuni.
— A few remarks on the forms mentioned above may be given here.

Cystechinus clypeatus. In the description of this species («Chall.»-Ech. p. 149) Professor Agassiz
remarks that in the specimens from the greater depths (ca. 1900 fathoms) «the test is much thinner
than in the fragments which are found near the rooo fathom line». This may perhaps be true for
other species (Agassiz refers to Powrtalesia, Cystechinus and Urechinus), though I do not see any
such difference among the specimens of U. zaresianus from the «Ingolf»; but as for C. clypeatus the
difference in the thickness of the test is in any case not alone due to the different depth at which
the specimens lived, but also to their being different species, as I can state after having examined
the fragments preserved in the British Museum; the pedicellarize differ so considerably that it seems
quite impossible that they can belong to the same species. Also the structure of their apical sys-
tems will probably be found to differ considerably. In the description it is said: «The abactinal
system closely resembles that of Cystechinus Wyvillii; the genital plates are, however, proportionally

larger, the left anterior and the right posterior far exceeding the others in

size, and extending entirely across the abactinal area, the whole central part yoo

of which is formed by the junction of the genital plates». But the figure, Pl. / alain
XXXYV.b. 10, 1s, as will be seen, not in accordance with that description; the ey “ arene Le
left anterior and right posterior genital plates do not exceed the others in i. y )

size or extend entirely across the abactinal area, and the whole central part
is not formed by the junction of the genital plates, the large ocular plates

of the anterior paired ambulacra separating widely the anterior and_ posterior

genital plates. — Among the fragments of Cystechinus clypeatus preserved in
the British Museum the apical system is found in those from St. 334, which Fig ’s Apical ayeten ent
belong to the thin-plated form. This apical system does not agree, however, = “'s“echinus clypeatus (St.
either with the description or the figure (Pl. XXXV.b. 10) as will be seen from ae

the sketch given here (Fig. 5). (It may be remarked that this figure was made free hand, without a
camera, so that the form of the plates may not be quite correct, but in the main features the figure
is correct.) In the fragments from St. 133, which evidently belong to the same species as those from
St. 334 (both these stations are near Tristan d’Acunha), only the two posterior apical plates, together
with some of the plates behind them, are preserved; this part agrees with the figure in the «Chal-
lenger»-Echini, which thus seems to have been made after this specimen. Whether the whole figure is
correctly drawn can no longer be seen. — Among the fragments from St. 205 (off Luzon, in the China
Sea)', the thick-plated form, no trace of the apical system is found.

On the fragments of the thick-plated form (St. 205) I have found three kinds of pedicellarie,
viz. tridentate and two kinds of ophicephalous pedicellariz. Unfortunately, no globiferous pedicellariz
were found; they will probably also be very characteristic, as is the case with the ophicephalous. The
tridentate pedicellarie (Pl. IX. Figs. 14, 28) have a simple, leaf-shaped blade, somewhat narrowed in the
lower part. The edge is thick, only faintly serrate, often with a larger tooth at the point; in the larger

ones there is, generally, a wingshaped lateral widening below the edge in the lower part of the blade.

1 Alone this very wide distance between the stations might beforehand raise some doubt of these forms being the
same species.

48 ECHINOIDEA. II.

The basal part is rather large. In the larger ones the valves join along about the outer half, in smailer
ones they join a longer way down; in the largest specimens seen the head is o6"™ long. — The
ophicephalous pedicellarize are very peculiar. One form has an almost globular head; the valves (PI
[X. Fig. 22) are short and broad, reminding one, indeed, very much of the ophicephalous pedicellarize
of the Echinina; the arcs are, however, not distinctly developed, and the stalk is not cup-shaped. In
these features they resemble the short broad ‘form of tridentate pedicellarize in Urechinus naresianus,
and perhaps they ought really to be regarded as tridentate pedicellarize. The other form (Pl. XI. Figs.
7, 10) has very elongate, narrow valves, with a terminal widening (the blade); the long narrow part
represents the apophysis, whereas the basal part is not distinctly developed. The outer edge of the
blade forms a series of large teeth, continuing a little way down the sides, rapidly diminishing in size.
There is a simple oval deepening in the widened outer part. One of the valves is considerably longer
than the two others, and this one alone has an are developed below the articular surface. The stalk
is cup-shaped above, otherwise compact. The length of the head of these pedicellariz is ca. 1™™, and
they are, indeed, very conspicuous objects, and by no means rare, but they seem to occur only on the
abactinal side, whereas the short, globular form seems to occur only on the actinal side. — Regarding
the structure of the test of this form, I can only say that the plates are very large and the pores simple.

The fossil Cystechinus crassus described by Gregory (Op. cit) must probably be nearest related
to this thick-plated species. Since neither the apical or the actinal system of this fossil form is known,
it was perhaps somewhat hazardous to associate it with this genus, as maintained by Agassiz; but
when Professor Agassiz says that «the great thickness of the plates .... would seem to preclude the
association of this species with Cystechinus» this objection seems a little curious, since Professor
Agassiz himself associates the equally thick-plated form from St. 205 with Cystechimus — and even
includes it in the same species with the exceedingly thin-plated form from off Tristan d’Acunha.

In the fragments of Cystechinus clypeatus from St. 133 and 334, the thin-plated form, I have
found four kinds of pedicellarie, viz. globiferous, tridentate, ophicephalous and triphyllous. The globi-
ferous pedicellarie (Pl. 1X. Fig. 1) are very peculiar; the blade is an almost closed tube, with a narrow
slit along the inner side, and ends in a single hook. I have found only one specimen of this kind of
pedicellaria in the dried fragments from St. 133; there is no trace of a thick investing skin, as might
be expected in a globiferous pedicellaria; I think, however, that it is really a globiferous pedicellaria
(the only other kind to which it might possibly be referred is the rostrate)'. The tridentate pedi-
cellariee are of two kinds; one has simple, leaf-shaped valves (PI. IX. Fig. 20), narrowed only for a
short space below, in the smaller ones joining along their whole length; the edge is very finely serrate.
The largest ones seen are ca. o'8™™ (head). The other form (Pl. IX. Fig. 23) is short, coarse; it was
found especially developed in some fragments from St. 133. This form recalls the short thick form of
tridentate pedicellarize of Uvrech. naresianus, and as all intermediate stages occur between the short,
robust form and the long and slender form of tridentate pedicellariz, it seems to give the proof that
this form in Urech. narestanus must also be regarded as a tridentate pedicellaria. — The «small large-
headed» pedicellaria of Cystech. clypeatus, figured in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea, Pl. XLII. Figs. 15—16

* By the name «rostrate» I designate the kind of pedicellarize named «die schnabelférmigen» by Déderlein, as well
as those named «die kochl6éffelf6rmigen», which are only a modification of the former type, as pointed out by Déderlein;

these two forms Professor Déderlein also designates by the name

laternenférmige tridentate» pedicellariae. (Echinoidea d.
deutschen Tiefsee-Exp. p. 73).

ECHINOIDEA. II. 49
and Pl. XLV. Figs. 30—31 is evidently this form of tridentate pedicellaria. (The figure 31. Pl. XLV
is, otherwise, not the tip of the blade as stated in the explanation of plates — though the expression
«blade» is, of course, not used —, but a fragment of the articular surface seen from above). The ophiceph-
alous pedicellarie (Pl. IX. Fig. 13) have rather elongate valves; the fine teeth along the outer edge
of the blade do not continue along the edges down the apophysis, as is the case in Urech. naresianus
and the other species related thereto; only a few coarse serrations are found along the sides of the
apophysis. The basal part is distinctly developed, though not reaching the outer widened part of the
valve. The arc is distinctly developed on all the valves; the upper end of the stalk is cupshaped. The
triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. IX. Fig. 29) are somewhat different from those of the other species of
«Cystechinus»; the valves are more elongate and spoon-shaped and more narrowed below than is the
case in the other species.

The description of Cystech. clypeatus given in the «Challenger»-Echini is evidently made after
this species. I can only add that the plates are large and very thin, with concentric lines (marks of
growth), and that the abactinal pores are simple. The very thick miliary spines, represented in PI.
XLV. Fig. 29 of the «Challenger»-Echini are found on the anal area of this species. The primary spines
are brownish at the base, white in the outer part; they are (some of them at least) coarsely serrate
in the outer part.

That the thickplated and the thinplated form represent two very distinét species is beyond
doubt; another question is, which of them must keep the name c/yfeatws, and that is not so easily
solved. It is certain that the figures given in the «Challenger»-Echini represent the thinplated form,
and the description likewise is evidently made from this. But on the labels of the thinplated speci-
mens (St. 133 and 334) there is a mark of interrogation (though this doubt is, as usual, not mentioned
in the text), which seems to indicate that Professor Agassiz himself regarded the thickplated form
as the type of the species, as seems also to be indicated by the name c/yfeatus. However, considering
the fact that the species described and figured under that name is really the thinplated form, I think
it correct to let this species keep the name Cystechinus clypeatus. The thickplated form (St. 205) must
then have another name; but since its structure is almost quite unknown, so that, in fact, we cannot say
to which genus it belongs (probably a new genus), I think it better to let it remain unnamed for the present.

«Cystechinus» (Urechinus) Wyvillit. Your kinds of pedicellariee have been found, viz. globi-
ferous, tridentate, ophicephalous and triphyllous. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. IX. Figs. 3, 5,24) are
essentially like those of Urech. giganteus, only the blade is shorter and more curved; there is gener-
ally only one tooth on either side of the terminal opening, sometimes, however, there are two on either
side. The tridentate pedicellariz occur in two forms: a more slender form, very similar to that of
U. naresianus, and a larger more coarse form (Pl. IX. Fig. 17), generally more or less irregular in the
lower part of the blade; size up to ca.o8™™. These two kinds are, however, not sharply distinguished,
all transitional forms being found. The figures given in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea Pl. XLII. 13 and
XLV. 28 as <large-headed» (Spatangoid-like) pedicellariz evidently represent the larger form, though
a less coarse specimen than that figured here. The ophicephalous pedicellarie are very like those of
U. giganteus; the head of an ophicephalous pedicellaria is represented, though not very clearly, in the

figure 27. Pl. XLV of the «Challenger»-Echini, under the name of a «Clypeastroid-like» pedicellaria.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 7

50 ECHINOIDEA. II.

The triphyllous pedicellarize are likewise very similar to those of narestanus. The same holds good
for the spines and for the spicules of the tube-feet. — Agassiz states (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini p. 124)
that in young C. lWyz7llii the labrum is followed by two plates, the sternum being absent; this is,
evidently, due to a lapsus memoriz. I need only refer to the figure 236 on p. 164 of the same work,
representing the plastron of a specimen 18"™ in length; it shows the plastron to be of the same struc-
ture as in Urechinus, as might be expected to be the case.

Perhaps two species have also been confounded under the name of Cystechinus Wyvillir in
the «Challenger»-Report. A comparison of the figures 1—4 with figs. 5—8 of Pl. XXIX, further of
Pl. XXIX.a with Pl. XXIX.b at any rate gives a strong impression that two distinct species are re-
presented here; moreover, the high form is so very like Cystechinus Loveni that it must beforehand
seem much more reasonable to associate it with this species than with the low form of C. Wyvzlliz.
To be sure, Agassiz points out (Panamic Deep-Sea Ech. p. 159) several features which distinguish
C. Loveni from the high form of C.lyz7lliz; but none of them seem to be of such value that it would
preclude regarding them as the same species. I have examined the pedicellariae of a specimen of the
high form (St.147) and find them to agree with those of the low form of M”yozl. On the other hand,
the pedicellarize of C. Lovend differ only little from those of MWyzz//it; I cannot therefore find herein
a definite proof that the high form is really the same species as the low form. Neither is it any proof
of their identity that they occur together on the same locality. The question can only be decided
after a very careful examination.

Cystechinus» (Urechinus) Loveni (a specimen from the «Albatross», St. 3415, examined in the
U.S. National Museum) differs only little from U. g7ganteus and Wyvillit with regard to the pedicellariz.
The globiferous pedicellarize are more like those of gzganteus, though not so large; in the two speci-
mens I have found, there are two teeth on each side of the terminal opening of the blade. The tri-
dentate pedicellaric (Pl. IX. Fig.19) are upon the whole longer and more slender than in grganteus;
the edges of the basal part are generally more or less produced. Ophicephalous and triphyllous pedi-
cellarice as in giganteus, the latter, however, mostly a little more narrowed below the blade. Spines
and spicules do not present any characteristic specific features.

The two species vesca and Rathbuni originally referred to Cystechinus have with full right been
transferred by Agassiz to a new genus, Pilematechinus which is distinguished from the former / Urechi-
nus) by the small size of the plates adjoining the peristome and especially through the structure of
the plastron, the labrum being in contact with the two plates 5.a.2 and b.2, a very conspicuous dif-
ference from Urechinus (Cystechinus) in which the plate 5. b. 2! alone occupies the whole space at the
outer end of the labrum. The genus Pilematechinus would thus represent a more primitive form than
Urechinus. Another very peculiar feature of this genus is the very thin and flexible test.

Pilematechinus Rathbuni has been very carefully figured and described by Agassiz (Panamic
Deep-Sea Ech. p. 165) as regards the structure of the test; the pedicellariz etc. are not mentioned.
Having examined specimens of this species («Albatross» St. 3360) in the U. S. National Museum I am
able to give some information thereof. The four usual kinds of pedicellarize were found. The globi-

‘ I quite agree with Lambert in his interpretation of this plate. (Comp. Lambert: Etudes morphologiques sur le
Plastron des Spatangides. Bull. Soc. Yonne. 18g2.)

ECHINOIDEA. IL. 51
ferous pedicellariz (Pl. X. Figs.9, 11) are very characteristic, the valves ending in a single long tooth,
at a right angle with the narrow blade, which forms a flattened, closed tube. As in Uvechinus the
valves are clad with a thick, dark, evidently glandular skin. No neck; the stalk is more compact than
in Urechinus. In the two globiferous pedicellariz I have seen, the valves are unsymmetrically devel-
oped in the basal part, the one figured from the inside being the most regular of them. Whether this
is a constant feature it is, of course, impossible to decide from such scanty material. The ophicephalous
pedicellarize (Pl. X. Fig. 26) have low and broad valves, somewhat sinuate and very finely and closely
serrate along the edge of the blade down to the apophysis. The upper end of the stalk as usual
cupshaped. The tridentate pedicellariz occur in two distinct forms; the one (Pl. X. Fig. 22) has very
long and narrow valves, somewhat widened in about the outer third, where the valves join. The edge
of this widened part is closely serrate; in the lower, narrowed part the edge has only some very few
small thorns. The blade is open along the whole length; there may be a faint indication of a meshwork
in the blade. This form reaches a length of ca. 1-2™™ (head). The other form (PI. X. Fig. 8) has the
blade almost, sometimes completely, closed as a tube in the lower half;
the outer half is spoonshaped widened, with the edges finely serrate.
In smaller specimens the narrowed part of the blade is shorter, in quite
smail ones it is not narrowed at all, the blade being simply leaf-shaped.
This form is much smaller than the former, the largest ones seen being
ca. 075". The triphyllous pedicellarize (Pl. X. Fig. 14) are like those of
Urech. giganteus, only somewhat more narrowed below the blade. —

The spicules and the rods supporting the filaments of the actinal tube-

feet as in Urechinus. — The miliary spines as in Urechinus, very similar
Fig. 6. Actinal plastron of P2/ematr-

to those of U. varesianus; | have not secured any of the primary spines, : ; ie ;
: j i echinus vesica; from the inside of

so that I cannot give any information of their structure. the test. Not drawn with Camera,

Pilematechinus vesica. The figures given of the structure of the
actinal part of the test of this species in the «Challenger»-Report (Pl. XXXV. 11—12) are not very
accurately drawn. The inner ambulacral plates are represented as being in contradiction to the general
rule of I.a, Il.a, III.b, IV.a, V.b having two pores; this is not really the case, they are fairly in
accordance with the rule, as I have been able to determine in the British Museum by the examination
what seems to be the original preparation after which the two cited figures are drawn. I give here a
sketch of the actinal plastron and adjoining ambulacral plates (Fig. 6).

The feature pointed out by Agassiz as making a «radical difference» between Pilematechinus
and Cystechinus, viz. that the labrum is followed by two plates in Pilematechinus, would indeed be
an extremely interesting fact, distinguishing this genus not only from Cystechinus (Urechinus), but
upon the whole from all the Meridosternata. Only in the Dysasteride (and the Cassidulids) is a similar
structure of the odd interambulacrum found. Pilematechinus would then represent the most primitive
of all recent Spatangoids. I was therefore very anxious to see, if P. vesica has the same primitive
structure of the plastron. I had occasion to examine this question at a short visit to the British Mu-
seum this year, and the result was that P. vesica does not show the very primitive structure of the

plastron described by Agassiz for P. Rathbuni. The labrum is very small, as shown in Fig. 6,

pa

/

ECHINOIDEA. II.

on
N

reaching scarcely beyond the middle of the first plate of the adjoining ambulacra. The sternum is
likewise very small, these two plates together representing what has been interpreted by Agassiz in
P. Rathbuni as the labrum alone. It also appears from. the remark (Panamic Deep-Sea Ech. p. 163) «It
is possible that the labium is made up of two plates and then followed by the regular succession of
plates», that Professor Agassiz has not been quite certain of the structure in P. Rathbunit, and I
think we may then safely conclude that P. Rathdunt agrees with P. vesica regarding the structure
of the odd interambulacrum, since they otherwise agree in all more important features. — The plastron
of Pilematechinus is thus in general accordance with that of Uvechinus, and the genus has a typical
meridosternon, differing from that of Uvechinus only in the small size of the plates, as upon the
whole all the plates near the actinostome are much smaller than in Urechimus. It is worth noticing
that in the paired interambulacra the inner plates are quite similar to those of the odd interambula-
crum, as is especially well seen in Pl. 85. Fig. 2 of the «Panamic Deep-Sea Ech.», when the transverse
line which is wanting between the labrum and sternum is added. — It may be stated expressly that
the pores are simple.

Another feature of no small interest I noticed on examining P. vesica, viz. that it has quite
distinct auricles; they do not form a ringshaped thickening of the plates all round the peristome, but
are present in the shape of five distinct elevations across the interambulacra close to the peristome,
ending with a somewhat more elevated portion in the middle of the adjoining ambulacral plates. They
are so distinct that one might indeed be tempted to suggest the existence of a rudimentary dental
apparatus in this species; there is, however, no trace of it, at least in the grown specimens, but it
seems not unreasonable to suggest that the embryos will show some traces thereof.

It may further be remarked that in P. vesca the alleged «resorption» of the tubercles is very
conspicuous — but it is beyond doubt that they have not been resorbed, but only rubbed off; it is
very easy to rub the tubercles off, and exactly the same appearance as the «resorbed» tubercles is
produced. (Comp. above p. 41.)

Concerning the inner anatomy of P. vesica it may be noticed that there is at least one very
well developed sipho.

The pedicellariz, of this species have received some attention in the «Challenger» Report, three
different kinds being mentioned. I have found four kinds, viz. globiferous, tridentate, ophicephalous
and triphyllous. The globiferous pedicellarie (Pl. X. Fig. 7) are like those of P. Rathbuni, the valves
ending in a single hook. The tridentate pedicellariz are rather richly developed; Agassiz gives no
less than four figures of them (Pl. XXXV.16, XLIII. 9—11), besides a figure of a single valve (Pl. XLV.
36). I have found two distinct forms of tridentate pedicellariz; the one has the valves rather abruptly
narrowed and the edges inrolled in the lower part (PI. X. Fig. 13); there may be some meshwork in
the blade. In the smaller forms the narrowed part is shorter, and quite small ones are, as usually,
simply leafshaped. The largest ones seen were 1™™ long (head). The figures Pl. XXXV.16 and XLIII.
g of the «Challenger»-Echinoidea represent this form, and since the Pl. XLV. Fig. 36 is said in the
explanation of plates to be a valve of the form represented in Pl. XLIII.9, this figure also belongs

\lso in one specimen of P. vesca the transverse line between the labrum and sternum was not quite distinct; in
other specimens it was beyond doubt.

ECHINOIDEA. II.

wn
Pa
&

here; it is) however, evidently not very correctly drawn. I have seen nothing resembling the figures
Pl. XLIIL ro—11; they probably represent only small specimens of this kind of tridentate pedicellariz.
The second form (Pl. X. Figs. 1, 4, 24, 28,29) 1s coarser and the form of the blade often somewhat irre-
gular; it has generally some very irregular meshwork. This kind of pedicellariz is found on the
actinal side, and especially on the peristome, even in the mouth they are quite crowded, reaching
some way up the oesophagus; those found here are generally more irregular than those on the out-
side of the test (Pl. X. Figs. 28—29). — It is probably this second form of tridentate pedicellarize which
is figured in Pl. XLIII. Fig. 12 of the «Challenger»-Ech. under the name of «Clypeastroid-like» pedi-
cellaria; the valve represented in Pl. XLV. Fig.35 as belonging to this form is certainly that of an
ophicephalous pedicellaria, but it seems very unlikely that it can belong to this form; the figure
Pl. XLIII. 12 does not seem so very bad, as it would be in case the valve did really belong to it —
and on the other hand, this coarse form of tridentate pedicellariz is generally invested with a rather
thick, brown skin, so that by a superficial examination not much more is seen than the figure cited
shows. — The ophicephalous pedicellarize are like those of P. Rathbunz, the valves being low and
rather broad. The Pl. XLV. Fig. 35 of the «Challenger»-Ech. gives a rather good representation thereof.
The figures Pl. XXXV. 17—18 may perhaps also represent the ophicephalous pedicellarie; they are
however, so crudely made that it is quite useless to speculate on what they are meant to represent.
— The triphyllous pedicellariz are like those of P. Aathbunt. The supporting rods of the filaments of
the actinal tube-feet are like those of Urechinus; spicules I have not seen. The spines evidently deserve
to be carefully studied; my preparations however do not allow me to give more than a few remarks
thereon. The only (broken) primary spine I have seen does not agree with the figure and description
given by Agassiz, it is curved and finely undulated along the longitudinal ridges. Clubshaped spines
are found at the actinostome as in Urech. naresianus.

To the Urechinide is further referred the genus Calymmne. The figures given in the «Challenger

Report do not allow one to see the real structure of the anterior paired

interambulacra; finding that this was an important character for the classi- Ge Sic
fication of the Meridosternata (viz. whether the second plate of these poy pe ie
interambulacra is single or double — Comp. below p. 85), I carefully examined EONS. Sa os
the fragments of the type specimens in the British Museum in this regard ( : 1c par |
and found that the first plate is in contact with two of the following plates. Se y~v D>
The unusual size of the actinal ambulacral plates makes it a little diffi- ya Mei)

Ei

cult to see the real structure in the poor fragments preserved; but the
pores of the ambulacral plates are distinct and leave no doubt of the Fig. 7. Part of the actinal side
: ; of the test of Calymne relicta.
morphological value of the plates (Fig. 7). (The figure is made after a
sketch taken without camera and thus cannot claim to be quite correct as regards the outline of the
plates; but in the main features it 1s correct.)
The apical system is certainly not very correctly given in the Fig. 2. Pl. XXXIV _ of the
-Challenger»-Ech. The two anterior genital plates with the madreporite seem to be confluent, not forming

two (or three) separate plates as in that figure. Of the two posterior genital pores seen in this figure

54 ECHINOIDEA. II.
only one, the left, is distinct in the fragment preserved. By a very careful preparation it will certainly
be possible to make out fully the structure of the apical system in this very interesting form.

As regards the pedicellarie Calymne agrees -with the Pourtalesize in having rostrate pedi-
cellarize of the form common in that family. They are of two kinds (Pl. X. Figs.5,6), one with the
outer end of the blade rather widened and finely serrate, the other with the outer edge only little
widened and provided with few, rather large teeth. (This is, evidently, the form figured in the «Chal-
lenger»-Echinoidea Pl. XLIII. 24 and XLIV.47 as a «Clypeastroid-like» pedicellaria.) The stalk may be
rather thorny, as is well shown in the «Chall.»-Ech. Pl. XLIV. 48; probably it is the coarse-toothed
form which has the thorny stalk, the other form having it smooth; but I cannot say this with cer-
tainty. The triphyllous pedicellariz are like those of Uvrech. narestanus. The miliary spines (Pl. X.
Fig. 30) have the point widened so as to form a broad, fenestrated plate, finely serrate along the outer
edge; the shaft is very slender, consisting of fine rods, which are not connected with transverse beams,
except a few at the base. This form of spine also recalls those found in some Pourtalesiz. —
Evidently Calymne is not very closely related to the Uvechinide,; 1 think it must form a separate
group (family), as it cannot be transferred to the Pourfaleside, the anterior ambulacrum not being
invaginated. (Comp. below p. 86.)

The genus Phrissocystis is also referred to this family (by Meissner in «Bronn. Classen u. Ord-
nungen», by Agassiz in the Preliminary Report on the «Albatross»-Echini, and by Déderlein in
Echinoidea d. deutschen Tief-See Exped.). This seems to be a rather unnatural place for this genus.
Unfortunately the structure of the plastron is not known, but so many other features point towards
Paleopneustes that I think Agassiz is quite right in referring it to the new family Paleopneustide
established by him (Panamic Deep-Sea Ech.), and I also think the establishment of that family

quite justified.

20. Plexechinus hirsutus Mrtsn.

Pl. VI. Figs. 8—9, 12—16. Pl. VII. Figs.9, 19—20. Pl. X. Figs. 2, 15—17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31—32, 34, 36—385.

Th. Mortensen: Some new species of Echinoidea. Vid. Medd. Naturh. Forening. Kébenhavn.
Ig05. Pp. 242.

The outline of the test is almost regularly oval, especially in the smaller specimens; in larger
specimens it is straight across the anterior ambulacrum or even slightly reenteringly curved. On the
actinal side the anterior ambulacrum is a little sunken; the posterior interambulacrum forms a very
prominent keel, prolonged into a broad, little projecting anal snout, surrounded by a fasciole. The
abactinal side is beautifully rounded, except the posterior end, the odd interambulacrum not sloping
at all but forming a rather prominent hood over the periproct. This feature together with the keel
on the actinal side makes the posterior end much higher than the anterior. The anal snout is dis-
tinctly less prominent than in P. c/zetus, being scarcely discernible in dorsal view, a very conspicuous
difference from the latter species, as will be seen on comparing the figures 13, 14. Pl. VI with PI. 58.
Figs. 2—3 of the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini», and the figures 12, 15 of the same plate with Pl. 55.

4—5 of the work quoted. — The whole of the test (except the ambulacra of the bivium on the actinal

- ECHINOIDEA. II. 55

side) is covered by a rather dense, uniform coat of slender primary spines, rising from a ground thickly
covered by short miliary spines. — he test is not very fragile. The largest specimen is 20™™ in length.

The actinostome is somewhat before the middle, a little sunken. It is round, covered by an
outer circle of larger, irregular plates and several smaller ones inside these. The mouth opening is
excentric, near the posterior edge. (Fig. 8.) (Comp. also PI. VIL. Fig. 19.)

The structure of the test agrees upon the whole with that of P. cézctfus. In one specimen (the
denuded one figured Pl. VI. Fig.9) the labrum is separated from the following plate by the junction
in the median line of the ambulacral plates I.a.2 and V.b.2 (Pl. VIL. Fig. 19), as is the case in P. cénc-
tus, in all the other specimens these two plates do not join in the middle line and the labrum is not
separated from the sternum (Fig. 8), but it is very narrow at the aborail end. The 4th plate of the
ambulacral series I.a and V.b has an episternal widening, which reaches within the subanal fasciole;
no other ambulacral plates reach the fasciole. As in P. cimctus the fasciole
encloses the inner part of the interambulacral plates 5.a.2—5 and b.3—6 aa
(the plates a.3 and b.4 are completely within the fasciole). The following
plates, a.6 and b.7 are rather elongate and reach the periproct, encircling
it together with the three following pairs of plates (a.7—g9 and b.8—ro); in
P. cinctus the periproct is surrounded by only three pairs of interambulacral
plates in all, viz. a.6—8 and b.7—o9, according to the figures given of that
species. The periproct is much sunken in its lower part, the point where
the plates 5.a.6 and b.7 reach the lower edge of the periproct being the

deepest; the upper part of it is at a level with the prominent hood formed

by the abactinal part of the odd interambulacrum. — The anterior ambula-

crum is short, as in P. civctus,; the plates above the ambitus are distinctly Fig. 5. Peristome, labrum
‘ : : ae and adjoining plates of Plex-

lower than those below the ambitus, and likewise they are distinctly lower EY PN PEROT, ey

than those of the paired ambulacra. (Pl. VI. Fig. 13, Pl. VII. Fig. 20.) The

pores of these plates are somewhat elongate vertically, showing a distinct tendency towards becoming
double (Pl. VII. Fig. 20). This form thus differs from the other genera of the Uvechinide in having
the ambulacra somewhat unequally developed. The same feature is seen in the figures of P. c/ctus,
though not mentioned in the description.

The apical system (PI. VII. Fig. 9) is like that of P. czctus, disjoint in the same manner. Two
genital pores, covered with long genital papilla, are found in a plate joining the ocular plate of the
anterior ambulacrum (Pl. VII. Fig. 20); this plate also bears a single madreporic pore. Evidently the
same is the case in P. cénctus, as Agassiz supposes". The plate with the genital pores must probably
be regarded as the confluent left and right anterior genital plates; otherwise, I think, the genital pores
in these forms may perhaps not be exclusively bound to the basal plates, the whole apical system

1 On p.15r (Pan. Deep-Sea Ech.) Agassiz says that «no trace of genital openings could be seen, unless one of the
openings seen on the large interambulacral plate in continuation of the odd (interjambulacrum be a genital pore». In the
light of the fact that both the corresponding pores in P. Airsedéws bear genital papillae and thus prove themselves to be ge-
nital pores it is certainly not too hardy to conclude that both the pores of this plate in P. céwctus are likewise genital open-
ings. In the figure r. Pl. 60 this plate bears a third small pore, quite as in Azvsutfus — evidently the madreporic pore. The

supposition that the specimens of P. céwctus (the smaller 21m™™) are only young stages thus becomes erroneous (though it is
of course possible that the species may reach a more considerable size).

c $CHINOIDEA. II.
56 E OIDE

showing some tendency to dissolution in this group. To determine with certainty which of the other
plates in the apical area of this species ought to be regarded as basal or as «intercalated» plates is
scarcely possible, and I cannot feel convinced either that the interpretation of these plates in P. cimctus
given by Agassiz is quite correct. — The genital openings are present in a specimen of 13™™, but
have not yet appeared in a specimen of 11™™.

The primary tubercles are scattered quite without order over the whole test, except the ambu-
lacral plates joining the sternum and episternum. A great number of small tubercles are found among
the primary ones. On the primary interambulacral plates, which are all in contact with the peristome,
the tubercles may be rather numerous, forming like a rudimentary bourrelet. The larger ones of the
plates of the peristome may carry a single tubercle (spine). — The primary spines (Pl. X. Figs. 21, 31) are
ca. 3™™ long, slender, gracefully curved, more or less spinous, a little widened towards the point. The
spines of the sternum are rather widened in the point and hollowed (Pl. X. Fig. 38). The spines round
the actinostome are not distinctly clubshaped. The miliary spines (Pl. X. Fig. 32) are short, ca. 0°5™™;
the point is widened and serrate, more or less flattened. The clavulz of the fasciole do not ditfer from
the other miliary spines.

The tubefeet of the two or three inner ambulacral plates are penicillate, forming a rather con-
spicuous phyllode. The rods supporting the filaments of these tubefeet are irregularly fenestrate, rather
coarse (Pl. X. Fig. 37); the spicules (Pl. X. Fig. 27) are arranged in two series; they are of the same general
shape as in Uvechinus. The tubefeet of the anterior ambulacrum are rather large, but simple; a more
or less distinct calcareous ring, formed by some few irregular, fenestrate plates is found, at the point
of the simple tubefeet. — The sphzeridize are found only on the inner one or two pairs of ambulacral
plates, generally only one on each plate. They are rather elongate, smooth (PI. X. Fig. 25).

The pedicellariz are represented by the four usual forms. The globiferous pedicellarize (Pl. X
Figs. 23, 34) are very peculiar; the blade forms a short but rather wide tube, which ends with a large
round opening, sometimes prolonged a little downwards on the inside; the edge of the opening is
rather finely serrate, except on the lower side. No neck; the stalk is rather thick. — It may, indeed,
be regarded as a little doubtful whether this form really represents the globiferous pedicellariz, since
there is no thick skin covering the valves, as is the case in the related genera Uvechinus etc. But
on the other hand it is rather similar in structure to the undoubted globiferous pedicellarize of Uve-
chinus giganteus, Wyvillit ete. and it would be more unnatural to refer it to any of the other kinds
of pedicellarice. (The glandular tissue may perhaps be found within the tubeshaped blade). The triden-
tate pedicellarize (Pl. X. Figs. 2, 16,36) are small, the largest ones only ca. o3™. The blade is simply
leafshaped, sometimes shorter and almost round; the edge is serrate, generally with some longer
teeth at the point. The figure 15. Pl. X represents a somewhat different form, with the blade more
narrow and the apophysis ending down in the blade. I have not seen transitional forms between the
two kinds of tridentate pedicellariz. The ophicephalous pedicellarie (Pl. X. Fig. 19) are very simple, of
the usual structure; the upper end of the stalk cupshaped. The triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. X. Fig. 17)
differ only little in shape from those of Uvechinus. — The pedicellarize of this species are upon the
whole few in number and little conspicuous.

The species was taken at the following stations by the «Ingolf

ECHINOIDEA. II.

wn
|

St. rr (64° 34’ Lat. N. 31° 12’ Long. W. 1300 fathoms 1°6 C. Bottom temp.) 2 specimens.
2 fe)

— 76 (60° 5°lC — 6° 50’ — 806 —_ 4°1 Ae = \i5o ==
— 81 (61° 44" — 27° 00! —_ 485 _— 623 — —. } 2 - (young)
— 83 (62°25 — 28° 30' — gI2. — 3°5 — — )3 —

One young specimen was further taken by the «Thor» rgoq at 61° 15/ Lat. N., 9° 35’ Long. W.
goo Meter.

This species is evidently nearly related to the Californian species Plexechinus cinctus A. Ag.
It is, however, easily distinguished from the latter species by the very different outline of the pos-
terior end of the test, the actinai keel being much higher and the anal snout much less prominent in
the Atlantic than in the Californian species; the periproct is also more sunken in Azrsefus. If it proves
to be a constant feature in P. céwctus that only three pairs of plates are in contact with the periproct
whereas in Azrsatus four pairs are so, this will be a very good distinguishing character. (In the /7.
Nordenskjoldi, to be described in the Report on the Echinoidea of the Swedish South Polar Expedi-
tion, only three pairs of plates are in contact with the periproct). — The pedicellariz can scarcely be

supposed to show more important differences.

The genus Plexechinus is placed among the Pourtalesie by Agassiz, mainly on account of
its anal snout and the position of the periproct; probably also other features: the elongated shape,
the apical system, the disjointed sternum and the rudimentary phyllodes are taken as arguments in
favour of such a position of the genus though it is not stated clearly. The genus certainly shows
some Pourtalesian affinities, but it is evidently more nearly related to the Urechinide. It differs essen-
tially from the Pourtalesize and agrees with the Urechinids in having a flat peristome, one of the
most prominent characters of the Pourtalesiz being the vertical peristome at the inner end of a deep
groove. Another feature of eminent importance is the structure of the anterior paired interambulacra;
the second plate is single in the Urechinids, whereas in all Pourtalesiz it is paired — in Plexechinus
it is single. Further Plexechinus agrees with the Urechinide in regard to the pedicellariz: globi-
ferous pedicellariz occur, but no rostrate; the ophicephalous pedicellariz are of the type found in
Urechinus (the elongate form of ophicephalous pedicellarize characteristic of Pourtalesiz is found in
«Cystechinus clypeatus» (the thick-plated form), but it is not certain that this is an Urechinid, the struc-
ture of its test being quite insufficiently known). Also the structure of the spines points towards the
Urechinid affinity. On the other hand several of the characters pointed out by Professor Agassiz
seem to me less important. The phyllodes are not so very rudimentary, at any rate not in P. hirsutus,
in which the two or even three inner tubefeet in each series are distinctly penicillate; the fact that
Sternopatagus has penicillate tubefeet, however, shows that much stress cannot be laid on this feature.
If it were of greater importance it could, of course, only be a further argument for placing Plexechinus
among the Urechinide, all the Pourtalesiz, except Sternopatagus, which Agassiz will even refer to
the Urechinids (without sufficient reason, as far I ean see (comp. below)), having only simple tubefeet.
The apical system shows so great differences in the whole Ananchytid group that it seems unreason-

able to lay much stress on its being a little more or less disjointed. Regarding the sternum both

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 8

ECHINOIDEA. II.

58

P. hirsutus and Nordenskjoldi have the labrum in contact with the sternum, this feature thus evidently
pointing towards the Urechinids. It thus seems evident that Plexechinus must be referred to the
Urechinide ; but it must be conceded that the position of the anal system and especially (what Agas-
siz seems to have overlooked) the shortened antérior ambulacrum show it to be a somewhat modified
type; it is also worth noticing that there is a faint trace of a deepening of the anterior ambulacrum
(more distinct even in 2. Nordenskjoldi). These characters point towards the Pourtalesize and may
perhaps indicate that the latter have developed from forms like Plexechinus, though the different
structure of the paired anterior interambulacra evidently forbid thinking of a direct derivation of the
Pourtalesize from the Urechinide; the structure of the test of the Pourtalesiz is more in accordance
with the Zchinocorythineg, and it would, indeed, seem more natural to suggest that the Urechinide
and the Pourtalesiide are two separate branches from the Lchinocorythide (Ananchytide). — ‘The
resemblances between Plexechinus and the amphisternous Paleotropus pointed out by Agassiz can
scarcely be more than superficial analogies. Upon the whole I do not see the reasons why the typical
amphisternous Paleopneustide should be reckoned among the «Ananchytid Spatangoids», as is done

by Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Ech. p. 150).

Fam. Pourtalesiide.

21. Pourtalesia Jeffreysi Wyv. Thomson.
Pl. V. Figs. 13—14, 16—19, 21, 23. Pl. VII. Figs. 2—4, 11—12, 14, 21. Pl, VIII. Figs. 4—6, 8—11. Pl. XI. Figs. 4, 7—10, 30.

Wyv. Thomson: Depths of. the Sea. p. 108—g. Fig. 12. p. 457. (394) Ann. Nat. Hist. 4. Ser. X
p. 305. «Porcupine»-Echinoidea. p. 747. Pl. VXX.1—10. Pl. LXXI. — Lovén: On Pourtalesia. Pl. 1—V
Pl. XII. 149. — Danielssen: Echinida. Norske Nordhavs-Expedition. p.5. — Pfeffer: (319) p. 101. —

Agassiz: Echinoidea. («Knight Errant») (10). — Ostergren: (450) p. 253. — Hoyle: Rev. List British
Echinoids. p. 430. Koehler: (233. b). — Déderlein: Arktische Seeigel. Fauna Arctica. p. 385. Echi-
noiden d. deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. p. 268. -- Grieg: Echinodermen v. d. norwegischen Fischerei-

dampfer «Michael Sars» in den Jahren t900—1903 gesammelt. I. Ophiuroidea. p.14. Bergens Mus. Ar-
bog. (1903). — Michailovskij: Zoolog. Ergebnisse d. Russischen Exped. nach Spitzbergen. Echino-
dermen. Ann. Mus. St. Petersbourg. VII. 1902. p.524. Nachtrag. Ibid. VIII. 1903. p. 393. Die Echino-

dermen der zoologischen Ausbeute des Eisbrechers «Jermak» yom Sommer gor. Ibid. IX. 1904. p. 163,

184. — Knipowitsch: Explorations zoologiques sur le bateau casse-glace «Ermak» en été de Igor.
Ibid. VI. 1901. p. IX, XV. — Kolthoff: Til Spetsbergen och Nordéstra Grénland Ar rgoo. p. 176, 210.

Non.: Rathbun: Catalogue of the Echini of the U. S. Nat. Museum. (337) p. 287. — Verrill:
Results of the Explorations of the «Albatross» 1883 (426). p.539. — Norman: Notes on the French

exploring Voyage of «Le Travailleur» in the Bay of Biscay (302). p. 435-

The rich and partly well preserved material of this species collected by the <Ingolf» enables me
to give a little additional information thereof, though, of course, not much remains to be done after
the elaborate descriptions given by Wyy. Thomson and especially by Lovén in his classical work

On Pourtalesiay, The most needed information, viz. that of the development of the test from quite

ECHINO A. 3 SC
Cc IDEA. II 59

young stages, I cannot give, since, unfortunately, no quite small specimens are found among the pres-
ent material. On the other hand, I do not doubt, as does Lovén (Op. cit. p. 22), that the young ones
will be found some day. Since we have found quite young specimens of //emiaster expergitus (see
below), a species much more rarely met with than Powrtalesia Jeffreysi, it seems not improbable that
we shall some day also have the good fortune to meet with the young Povw~rtalesia.

The general form of the test is well described by Lovén (Pourtalesia. p.6); there is, however,
some variation, as pointed out by Michailovskij (Echinod. d. «Jermak» p. 163). Some specimens are
rather short and broad and with short anal rostrum, others are rather flattened; also deformities occur
not very seldom, with irregular depressions or with the posterior end awry (PI. V. Fig. 14), the supra-
anal prolongation turning to one side, the anal rostrum to the other. Also the anterior end may be
unequally developed, the one side projecting in front of the other. — The Figures 10, 21, 23. Pl. V
represent a specimen in which the spines are uncommonly well preserved; the two side-views, Pl. V.
Figs. 13, 18 show how different the outline in profil may be. (See also Michailovskij. Loe. cit.) —
The species reaches a considerable size; the largest specimens at hand are up to 58"™ in length.

Wyv. Thomson states (Op. cit. p. 749) that «the test 1s so remarkably thin that it will scarcely
bear its own weight». I do not find the test of this species so very fragile; on the contrary, I find it
almost stout for a deep-sea species. It deserves to be noticed that among the «Ingolf» material there
are several old tests (St.113 and 117), which have evidently been partly or completely embodied in
the bottom deposits (they were full of mud); most of them are quite uninjured. On one of these tests
was found a sea-anemone, on another a sponge. — The sutures of the abactinal lateral plates are, in
the larger specimens at least, generally somewhat raised, the plates themselves being somewhat con-
cave; this may perhaps be a structure tending to strengthen the test.

The morphological structure of the test has been most admirably worked out by Lovén.
There is, however, one point of interest on which my rich material enables me to make an addition
to our knowledge, which is of some importance, viz. the labrum and the adjoining ambulacral plates.
Lovén finds that in P. Jeffreys? the labrum is quite rudimentary, only represented by a small plate
on the incurved edge, below the actinostome and not seen from without. The ambulacral plates I.a.1
and V.b.1 are large and join in the median line in their whole length, whereas the plates I.b.1
and V.a.1 are wanting (or, as Lovén thinks, coalesced with the large plates I.a.1 and V.b.1, which
are thus really compound; p. 83) —a considerable difference between this species and the other species
examined by Lovén: P. daguncula, carinata and ceratopyga, in which the labrum is distinctly seen
from without, separating the inner plates of ambulacra I and V; the plates I.b.1 and V.a.1 are also
developed in these species.

This feature of P. Jeffreysi is, however, no constant one. To be sure, the labrum is often, per-
haps in most cases, not to be seen from without; but there is considerable variation with regard to
this plate. In some specimens it is seen as a very narrow plate, quite enclosed between the two large
inner ambulacral plates, in others it is well developed, reaching to the border of the invagination; it
may even be divided into a larger outer part and a smaller inner part at the edge of the invagination
(Pl. VIII. Fig. 10). Regarding the inner plates of ambulacra I and V there is likewise great variation.

I have seen one specimen in which only the plate a.1 was developed in ambulacrum I, otherwise I
8

60 ECHINOIDEA. II.

have constantly found both the inner plates of I and V developed; but the plates I.b.1 and V.a.1
are generally very small and easily overlooked. The plates I.a.1 and V.b.1 may be very unequally
developed, one of them simulating the labrum, but the presence of the pore at its inner end shows
its real nature. Generally only the four larger of these plates bear distinct pores and tube-feet, in the
other plates only quite rudimentary pores are present, sometimes the pore has even quite disappeared.
Besides the supposed coalescence between the two inner plates of ambulacra I and V, Lovén, points
out (Op. cit. p. 36) as another peculiar feature in this species, that the inner plates of ambulacra II and
IV are not in accordance with the general rule that the plates Ia, IJ.a, III.b, [V.a, V.b are the
largest. I have constantly found the inner plates of the paired ambulacra to be in accordance with
the rule, only as to ambulacrum IV I have sometimes been unable to see it distinctly. As it seems very
unlikely that all the specimens examined by Lovén should happen to be abnormal in this respect, I

must venture to suggest that Lovén has overlooked some of these small

plates, which may, indeed, be rather difficult to see. (I have found them

ar

easiest to discern when examining the denuded test in alcohol; on dried
tests, treated with alcohol-glycerine it is almost impossible to trace the limits
between the small plates). A very small plate may sometimes be found be-
tween the inner plates of the ambulacra I and II on one side and IV and

V on the other side (Pl. VIII. Figs. 5, 8,9, rr). It must doubtless be regarded

as the rudimentary inner plate of the interambulacra 1 and 4. Whether this
plate was really absent in Lovén’s specimens or perhaps was overlooked,
it follows from its occasional (not very seldom) occurrence that the plates
interpreted’: by Lovén as No.1 of the interambulacra 1 and 4 (On Pourta-

lesia. Pl. II. 9) are really No.2. In the figure 9 copied from the quoted figure

of Loven, I have shown my interpretation of these plates. (Comp. Figs. 10, 11 of

Fig. 9. Actinal plastron of 7074 A/vale). Upon the whole there is so great variation in the development
Pourtalesia Jeffreyst. After

pu of the plates of this region that it is ‘scarcely possible to find two specimens
soven.

quite alike in this respect. Such extensive variation in structures of consider-
able morphological importance is of no small interest, and it is shown hereby that the mutual relation
of the plates in this region cannot be relied upon for specific differences, in any case for this species,
and for the other species it will also be necessary to be very cautious in the use of such characters.
The figures 4—6, 8—11. Pl. VIII show some of the variations in the structure of this region found in
P. Jeffreyst. (These specimens otherwise are all quite typical P. /efreysi; all variations may be found
in specimens from the same station).

The primary tubercles form distinct longitudinal (from a morphological point of view: trans-
verse) series on the sides at the anterior end of the test. These series generally are very prominent
ou the plates of the anterior series of the two antero-lateral ambulacra (II and IV), each plate bearing
one series in the middle, the tubercles increasing somewhat in size from the anterior towards the
posterior edge of the plate. On the plates of the posterior series of these two ambulacra the tubercles
are more irregularly arranged, and on the posterior part of the test they are upon the whole quite

irregularly arranged, though sometimes there is a tendency towards a serial arrangement. The plates

ECHINOIDEA. II 61

forming the anterior edge (posterior series of the antero-lateral interambulacra) are rather closely
covered by primary tubercles, not arranged in distinct series. (Comp. Lovén. Pourtalesia. Pl. I. 3). The
miliary tubercles are generally very numerous, especially on the anterior end of the test. One speci-
men is interesting in showing in considerable number the empty places of primary tubercles; the
places are distinctly seen, but covered with pigmented skin, and it looks as if miliary spines have —
appeared in some of them. As mentioned above (sub Urechinus naresianus, p.41) Agassiz thinks
such cases a proof of the spines having been resorbed — I think it more probable that it is the result
of some damage undergone by the specimen.

The primary spines are of a rather uniform length, the longest of them (the posterior ones of
those on the anterior series of plates of the antero-lateral ambulacra, in accordance with the size of
the tubercles) scarcely reaching one third of the length of the test. They are slightly curved, generally
smooth, ending in a simple point. Those of the sternum are somewhat flattened, widened at the point.
The spines on the invaginated portion are short and very robust (Lovén. Pourtalesia. Pl. V. 36); those
near the edge are longer and more slender, gracefully curved. The miliary spines are widened at the
point and curved, as figured by Wyv. Thomson (Pl. LXX. 8); the clavule of the fasciole essentially
as the miliary spines, the widened point only a little shorter and thicker.

Spicules are almost totally wanting; sometimes, however, a very few irregular, branched rods
occur at the outer end of the tube-feet. The tip of the tube-feet, on the contrary, is enclosed by a
rather thick cap (or broad ring) of ¢aleareous network (PI. VII. Fig. 21); this holds good, however, only
for those of the antero-lateral ambulacra, which are, upon the whole, rather well developed. In those
of the odd anterior ambulacrum such a calcareous cap is generally not found; sometimes a few irreg-
ular spicules occur there, but mostly they are quite destitute of spicules.

Of pedicellarize two kinds, viz. ophicephalous and tridentate, were described and figured by
Wyv. Thomson, and two kinds, viz. ophicephalous and rostrate (<laternenférmige» tridentate) by D6-
derlein (Echinoiden d. deutschen Tiefsee-Exped. p. 269). I have found these three forms; globiferous
pedicellarize do not seem to occur. The rostrate pedicellarize (Pl. XI. Figs. g—10, 30) are rather conspicuous
and numerous; the head up to ca. o'5™", more or less dark pigmented. They are generally threevalved,
but two- and fourvalved specimens occur. (For the description of the valves, comp. Déderlein, loc.
cit.) The elegantly shaped ophicephalous pedicellariz are likewise well described by Déderlein,
whilst Wyv. Thomson has given a pair of rather good figures of them; I give here only figures
of isolated valves in front and side view (PI. XI. Figs. 4,7). — It may be noticed that the narrow part
of the valves of these pedicellariz contains a small irregular cavity, which opens into the deepening
in the widened outer part. This is, otherwise, especially distinct on the ophicephalons pedicellaria of
Pourt. paradoxa figured Pl. XI. Figs. 3,6. I have not found the ophicephalous pedicellarie on all the
specimens. — The tridentate pedicellariz, the form figured by Wyv. Thomson Pl. LXX. Fig. 10, are
very small, with a short but distinct neck. The valves (PI. XI. Fig.8) are simply leafshaped, the edge
of the outer part rather coarsely serrate. (That this form must be regarded as a tridentate, not a tri-
phyllous pedicellaria becomes evident from what is found in Pourt. hispida (comp. below p. 78); also
in Plexechinus hirsutus a quite similar tridentate pedicellaria occurs together with typical triphyllous

pedicellarize; comp. above p. 56.)

62 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Regarding the internal anatomy it may be pointed out that there is a double sipho, the outer
one rather widened at its aboral end (Pl. VII. Fig. 14); the blind diverticulum is well developed, lobate
(Pl. VII. Fig. 2, 4). The course of the stone canal (Pl. VII. Fig. 2) as in Uvechinus naresianus. The axial
organ is seen as a small swelling near the uppér end of the stonecanai (PI. VII. Figs. 3,12). (The
figures of the internal anatomy of Pourtalesize given in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea only show the
course of the intestine and the shape of the genital organs; the diverticulum, the siphones, stone-canal
and axial organ are not represented). The genital organs show the curious feature of being very dif-
ferent in shape in the two sexes. The female genital organs are long thick tubes, quite unbranched,
but irregularly folded (Pl. VII. Fig. 11); the male organs are of the usual bush-shape, with an unusually
long efferent duct (PL VII. Fig. 12). No spicules are found in the walls of the genital organs or in-
testine. Genital papillae are well developed, sometimes even very long (ca. 8™™). The genital openings
are not developed in specimens of 18—2o0™™ length; in a specimen of 22™™ they are developed.

The smallest specimens in hand (18—20™") do not differ essentially in the shape of the test
from the grown specimens, they are only somewhat more slender. The abactinal keel is distinct, but
is less produced over the periproct than in the grown specimens.

Considerable numbers of this species were taken by the «Ingolf» at the following stations:

St. 103 (66° 23’ Lat.N. 8°52’ Long. W. 579 fathoms - 0°6 C. Bottom temp.) 2 specimens.

— 113 (69°31" — 7° 06! — 130905 = +1ro — — )74 —(+ ca. 10 dead tests)
— 116 (70°05) = — 8° 26! — 371 = = 0°4 — — )22 —

— 117 (69° 13) — 8222" — 1003 — = 1°O — — )10 —(-+ 1 dead test)

— 19 (67°53) — _ 10° I0! — I01I0 — + 1°o _ — )25 —

SEC 4 OE SAO AOS ee sascha le

— 126 (67°19) — 15°52! — 293 — = 0°5 _ —)1 —

— 138 (63° 26° — 7a Of _ 471 — + 0°6 = — )244 —

The species is distributed all over the «cold area» of the Norwegian Sea, from the Feeroe
Channel to Spitzbergen, Novaja Zemlja (Knipovitsch. Op. cit.) and East Greenland (Kolthoft.
Op. cit.). The bathymetrical distribution is from ca, 125 (Dd6derlein. Fauna Arctica) to ca. 1300 fathoms.
It is further recorded from the Bay of Biscay (Norman. op.cit.) and from the American side of the
Atlantic (Rathbun, Verrill. op.cit.). The specimens upon which these indications are founded, will
probably turn out to belong to the Powrtalesia Wandelt, described below, or to P. miranda A. Ag.
Among the specimens of Powrtalesta from the warm area of the Atlantic dredged by the «Ingolf»
there is no P. Jeffreyst (with regard toa few small specimens from St. 40,67 and 68, comp. below, p. 68),
and some specimens which I examined in the U. S. National Museum are likewise certainly not
P. Jeffreysi — as far as they are not so badly broken that it is impossible to identify them with any
probability (which was exactly the case with the specimens from St. 2084, mentioned in Rathbun’s
Catalogue, loc. cit.). The specimens more tolerably preserved seemed to me to be all P. Wandeli; but
in view of the uncertainty prevailing with regard to P. miranda (comp. below p. 65—66) I do not venture
after the short examination which I could undertake there, to say with certainty to which species
they belong. I only want to state that I have seen no true P. /effreys/ among them. The same holds
good for several specimens, which Professor Verrill kindly let me examine. — Upon the whole it

must be emphasized that at the present time P. /efreys/ is not known with certainty from the warm

ECHINOIDEA. II. 62

area of the Atlantic (— its occurrence in the Bay of Biscay (Norman. op.cit.) must likewise be re-
garded as doubtful, the statement evidently being made without a close examination of the speci-
mens —), and I doubt that it will be found there. Pouwrtalesia /effreysi is the only deep sea Echi-
noid known from the cold area; it is only known from there, and it will probably turn out to inhabit
the cold area alone, as has been proved for most of the animal forms of that region. From this consid-
eration Grieg (op. cit.) has already doubted the correctness of the identification of the specimens
from the American coast recorded by Professor Verrill under the name of Pourtalesia Jeffreysi, and

the doubt was quite justified.

22. Pourtalesia Wandeli Mrtsn.
Pl. V. Figs. 1—7, 11—12. Pl. VIII. Figs. 1—3, 7. Pl. XI. Figs. 1, 13—14, 18—20, 23, 34—37, 40—41.

Th. Mortensen: Some new species of Echinoidea. Vid. Medd. Naturh. Foren. Kobenhavn
1905. p. 242.

The shape of the test is rather elongated, more slender than in P. /effreysz. The front end is
almost vertical; on the abactinal side the test rises gently towards the middle, where the greatest
height is found, and then slopes gradually towards the posterior end. An abactinal keel is hardly
indicated in larger specimens, whereas it may be more distinct in smaller ones. The test is not pro-
duced over the periproct; in side view the outline of the abactinal side is thus seen to continue to
the posterior end of the short anal rostrum scarcely without any sinuation over the periproct, a very
conspicuous difference between the species and P. /efreysz, as is seen on comparing the figures 11 and
13, 18, 23 of Pl. V, representing side views of the tests of these two species. — In younger specimens
the outline in profil of the posterior end is somewhat different (Pl. V. Figs. 5,12) in accordance with
the more developed abactinal keel, the periproctal sinuation being considerably more distinct. The
sides of the test are almost parallel, the width augmenting only very little towards the posterior half,
the greatest width being found a little past the middle; from there it*rapidly narrows towards the
posterior end. The actinal side is almost flat — a conspicuous difference from P./efreysz, as is seen on
comparing the figures 11,12 and 13,18. Pl. V. Among smaller specimens of the two species this differ-
ence is, however, not so great, P. /effreys? being flatter on the actinal side when younger. The
sternum and episternum form a rather distinct actinal keel, which continues along the under side of
the anal snout. The actinal invagination is somewhat longer than in 7. /effreys¢; the number of plates
in the odd ambulacrum is, however, the same as in /effreys?, 12—13. The form of the peristome as in
Jeffreyst. — The test seems to me a little more fragile than in /efreysz.

Regarding the structure of the test this species agrees in the main features with P. /effreysz.
The labrum is generally not seen from without, may, however, be found as a small plate between the
ambulacrals I.a.1 and V.b.1, which are distinctly developed; eight simple pores are found at the
posterior edge of the invagination (PI. VIII. Figs. 1,3); none of the inner ambulacral plates have two
pores. If the tube-feet are developed on all the plates I dare not assert, as it is rather difficult to dis-
cern them among the small spines in this place, both spines, tube-feet and skin being covered by
dark violet pigment; also the pores may be very difficult to discern, as in P. /effreysi. A small

plate may be found between the ambulacrals I and II on one side and between IV and V on the

64 ECHINOIDEA. II.

other side, evidently the inner plate of interambulacra 1 and 4 (PI. VIII. Fig.1), as it is also found
sometimes in P. Jeffreys. Upon the whole the structure of the actinal side, labrum, sternum, episternum,
the two ambulacra of the bivium and the postero-lateral interambulacra agree very nearly with that
of P. Jeffreysi. The periproct differs a little in outline from that of /efreys?, being more elliptical, not
abruptly widened in the upper part as in that species. The plates surrounding the periproct are 5. a.
6—8 and b.7—9; this holds good also for younger specimens, whereas in smaller specimens of P. /ef-
freyst (till at least a size of 30™™) there are 4 epiproctal plates on each side (5.a.5—8 and b.6—9) (in
larger specimens there are only three epiproctal plates as in P. Wandeli, the lower pair being shut
off from the periproct). The apical system (Pl. VIII. Figs. 2,7) as in /effreysz, perhaps a little closer
to the anterior border than in that species. I have found a case of the genital plates being distinct
(Pl. VIII. Fig. 2) as found exceptionally by Lovén in /efreysz (in that species I have not met with
such a case).

The tuberculation shows some difference from P. /efreyst. The linear arrangement of the pri-
mary tubercles is in larger specimens more prominent than in that species. The interambulacral plates
at the front sides (posterior series of interambulacra 2 and 3) each bear two prominent parallel or
posteriorly a little diverging, series of primary tubercles; on the uppermost and lowermost 2—3 plates
of this series the linear arrangement of the tubercles is indistinct. The part of these plates, which is
bent over on the front edge, bears only few, irregularly arranged primary tubercles, as is also the case
with the other plates on the front. The following two series of plates (ambulacra II and IV, a.b.) bear
a series of primary tubercles each. Also the following interambulacral plates show a tendency towards
a serial arrangement of the tubercles. In these series the tubercles always increase in size from before
towards the posterior end, the hinder one being the largest. It is only the plates on the sides of the
test which have the tubercles thus serially arranged. The rest of the test has like P. Jeffreys: only
irregularly scattered primary tubercles, somewhat less numerous, however, than in that species. The
miliary tubercles are upon the whole less numerous than in /efreysz, the test looking more smooth
than is generally the case in that species. The sutures are not elevated as in /ef/reysz. —'Though the
serial arrangement of the primary tubercles is much more prominent in ?. lVandeli than in /effreysz,
when larger specimens are compared, it must be conceded that in smaller specimens the serial arrange-
ment is almost equally developed in both species.

The primary spines of the abactinal side are very long, especially those of the anterior series

S)
of the antero-lateral ambulacra and those of the interambulacral plates on the front edge, and — in
accordance with the size of the tubercles — the posterior spine of each series is the longest. The

longer of these spines reach from the anterior end of the test to the periproct, thus reaching more
than two thirds of the length of the test. They are curved and bent backwards, lying rather close to
the test; generally they are strongly thorny, especially along the convex side, which gives them a
characteristic lustre. ‘Sometimes they are irregularly curved at the point. (Pl. V. Figs. 1, 3,5. Pl. XI.
Fig. 36). These long spines give this species a very characteristic appearance, differing highly from
P. Jeffreyst in which species the spines are much shorter, smooth, and generally not bent backwards
over the test. (Comp. Pl. V. Figs. 1, 3,5 with Pl. V. Figs. 19, 21, 23). — The spines of the actinal plastron

(Pl. Xt. Fig. 35) are flattened at the point, like those of /efreysd, and likewise those within the invagi-

ECHINOIDEA. II. 6s

nation (Pl. XI. Figs. 20, 34) as well as the miliary spines (PI. XI. Figs. 37,41) and the clavule agree
with those of /efreysz.

The tube-feet are small and simple, without spicules, but generally with a calcareous cap as
in Jeffreyst. The spheeridiz placed singly, not presenting peculiar features. The pedicellarie are repre-
sented by the same three kinds as in /ef/reyse. The rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XI. Figs. 1, 19, 23) are
characteristic, broadly rounded and rather densely serrate at the point, differing distinctly from those
of Jeffreyst. The ophicephalous pedicellarize are much more alike in the two species, only the terminal
portion is perhaps upon the whole a little smaller in P. Wandeli (Pl. XI. Figs. 13, 14). The tridentate
pedicellarize (Pl. XI. Fig. 4o) are alike in both species.

The internal anatomy agrees with /efreysz, only the female genital organs are slightly ramose.
The genital openings are not yet developed in a specimen of 20™ length, but in a specimen of 21™™
they are found; on the other hand they are not yet fully developed in a specimen of 26™™. It is thus
evident that this species is not mature before it has reached a size of a little over 20™™ length. The
largest specimens are 53™™. Distinct genital papillae are found in the grown specimens.

The colour is dark violet; also the spines may be so coloured (always so in life?). According to
a coloured sketch from a living animal (St. 36) the living animal is more claret coloured, or to speak
very exactly, intermediate between «vinosus» and «<atro-violaceus», with a tint of «atropurpureus»
along the abactinal keel. (Saccardo. Chromotoxia. Ed. II. 1894).

This species was taken by the «Ingolf» at the following stations:

St. 18 (61° 44' Lat. N. 30° 29’ Long. W. 1135 fathoms 3°0C. Bottom temp.) I specimen.
— 24 (63°06' — 56°00! — I19g9 — 24 = —) 1 —
= GON OIG) TOI SS 2) US emma RGN nD OLY ae on a) FO pate
TOO MEE cee ESR OS 8 i | CEPTS: hes keds | = a eto, Ms
— 39 (62°00° — 22°38 — 865 — 29° — —)r =
— 40 (62°00 — 21°36 — 845 — 3°300« = at) san
— 67 (61°30 — _ 22°30) — 975 — 300 — —)r =
Most of the specimens were broken. — Further a pair of broken specimens were taken by the

«Thor» St. 164 (62° 10’ Lat. N. 19° 36’ Long.W. 1144 fathoms); they are mentioned as Pouwrtalesia miranda?
in Johs. Schmidt: Fiskeriundersogelser ved Island og Feroerne i Sommeren 1903. p. 24’. — The
species is thus known to occur in the warm area of the Northern Atlantic from South of Iceland to
Davis Strait, from 845—1715 fathoms; probably it will prove to be distributed over a large part of the
warm area of the Atlantic. It seems to be a more exclusively deep-sea species than P. /ef/reysi.

I have named this species in honour of the chief commander of the «Ingolf»-Expedition, Ad-
miral Wandel.

P. Wandeli is, evidently, rather nearly related to P. Jeffreys?, but is easily distinguished from
the latter species, mainly by the shape of the test, the long, curved and thorny abactinal spines and
the rostrate pedicellariz. Its relation to P. miranda A. Ag. is, for the present, not quite clear, because
our knowledge of the latter species is rather unsatisfactory. In the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini
p- 139 it is stated that the type specimen was only 3°5™™ in length; nevertheless it was mature, the
genital openings being already fully developed, as shown in Fig.9. Pl. XVII of «Rey. of Echini» and

« Skrifter udgivne af Kommissionen for Hayundersogelser. No. 1. 1904. Kobenhayn.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 9

66 ECHINOIDEA. IL.

also mentioned in the description (p. 345). As P. Wandeli is not mature at a smaller size than ca. 20™™
length, this difference between these two species seems so essential that they could for that reason
alone not be regarded as so very closely related. I must, however, be allowed to suggest, that
this statement of the size of the type specimen of P. mirandaisa mistake. In the description in «Rev.
of Echini» as well as in the preliminary description (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. I. 1869. p. 272) nothing is
said about the size of the specimen, but in the explanation of the Pl. XVIII the figure 1 is said to
represent the specimen magnified 3°5 in diameter». The figure being 7o™ in length, this would
give a size of 20™ for the type specimen. (In «Three Cruises of the «Blake» II. p.1o1 the figures
from the «Revision» are copied in half size, and the figures are then said to represent the specimen
twice magnified; this would give a size of 18™™ for the type specimen). I think there can be little
doubt of the correctness of my suggestion as to the size of the type of P. miranda (which has,
unfortunately, been lost), and thus this difference between P. mzranda and Wandeli is reduced to
nothing. (It would also be quite surprising that a specimen of so small a size as 3'5™™ should be
mature). The structure of the test of P. mzranda is not worked out in the «Revision of Echini», but
in «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» p. 140 careful figures are given thereof, from a specimen of 18™™ length,
collected by the «Blake». This specimen, it must be conceded, agrees very closely with P. Wandelz,
the only differences worth mentioning being that the anal snout bends a little upwards and that the
labrum is large, which I have never found to be the case in P. Wandel. Remembering, however, the
inconstancy of this feature in P. /effreysz, it is not safe to lay much stress on this single feature. I
thus think it very likely, indeed, that the specimen figured in the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» under
the name of P. mzranda is identical with P. Wandeli; but on the other hand I cannot think that it
is really P. miranda. A comparison with the original figures in «Revision of Echini» Pl. XVIII shows
several important differences. The outline in side view is very different; in the figure in «Rey. of
Ech.» the front slopes forwards from the apical system, in the specimen figured in «Pan. Deep-Sea
Ech.» it slopes inwards; but the anal region especially is very different, the projection over the peri-
proct being much larger and the anal snout turning much more upwards than in the specimen from
the «Blake»; the snout is also much broader in the type specimen. The differences pointed out
here hold good also when comparing with P. Wandeli,; further I may notice a very conspicuous dif-
ference in the spines. According to the description the primary spines are long, curved, slightly fan-
shaped at the extremity, as also appears in the figures; no serial arrangement of the spines is indi-
cated on the figures or mentioned in the text. It seems hardly possible that the serial arrangement,
so evident in /. Wandeli and the specimen from the «Blake», could have escaped completely the
notice of the author of «Revision of Echini», the figures looking, indeed, much too good and carefully
drawn for suggesting such an omission. Also the length of the spines is very different from what is
the case in P. Wandelt, — Further the large tentacles in the odd ambulacrum and the coloration are
conspicuous differences from P. IVandeli. In my opinion it can scarcely be doubted that the specimen
described and figured in «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» as P. miranda is not that species but P. Wandelt,
(or a nearly related, undescribed species — comp. below), whereas P. miranda, which has still to be
rediscovered, belongs to a quite different type of Pourtalesiae, characterized (as far as hitherto known)

by the broad anal snout, the large front tentacles and the comparatively short, not serially arranged

ECHINOIDEA. II. 67

spines. In these characters P. miranda agrees with P. daguncula, and Agassiz («Challenger»-Echini
p- 137) is certainly right in stating that «this species is closely allied to P. miranda». Also the P. Tanneri
is regarded by Agassiz as closely related to P. daguncula; it is, however, not clear from his otherwise
(regarding the structure of the test) very elaborate description and figures of this species, whether it
agrees with /aguncula (and miranda) in the shape of the spines and the development of the front ten-
tacles. Of the spines it is only said: «the primary radioles on the flanks of the test are also longer,
while in P. daguncula and P. miranda they are somewhat spathiform» (Pan. Deep-Sea Ech. p. 132). The
front tube-feet are not mentioned at all. Having received a specimen of P?. Zanneri from the U. S.
National Museum I can state that the spines are not widened towards the point, whereas the frontal
tube-feet are really rather large and conspicuous. The pedicellariz do not afford any proof of a close
relationship between PP. Zanneri and laguncula. In the former species I have found only rostrate
pedicellariz with rather slender valves (Pl. XI. Fig. 11) and small tridentate pedicellarie of the same
form as in P. /effreyst.

In P. daguncula (examined in the British Museum) I have found (in a specimen from St. 232)
globiferous pedicellarize with the valves ending in two or three long teeth, resembling closely those
of P. carinata (comp. Pl. XI. Figs. 16, 22), ophicephalous pedicellariz with rather elongated, slender
valves (Pl. XI. Fig. 12) — (differing considerably from those figured in the «Chall.»-Ech. Pl. XLIIIL. 18
—ig under the name of «Clypeastroid-like» pedicellariaze, so much, indeed, that they can scarcely be-
long to the same species) — and two forms of tridentate pedicellaria, viz. the usual small form, which,
however, here occurs also with the apophysis continuing into the outer edges of the blade, and a
larger form with long and slender valves with the blade almost flat (Pl. XI. Fig. 33), the outer edge
very finely serrate. (This form differs so much from the pedicellarize of the other species that it may
perhaps be suggested not to belong really to this species). Of rostrate pedicellariz I have found only
one small specimen, which does not differ essentially from those of P. Zaxnerz. Small spicules, in the
shape of fenestrated plates are found in the large frontal tube-feet.

The form figured in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea Pl. XX XI. 7—11 and mentioned (p. 138) as
younger specimens of P. daguncula showing «considerable variation in the outline» can hardly be the
same species as that figured in the same Plate, Figs. 1—6, which must be taken as the type of the
species. The latter specimen was 22™, that represented in the figure 7—11 was 12™™ in length. It
seems hardly conceivable how so great a difference in the shape of the test could be due merely to
changes during growth, and a growth only from 12 to 22™™ in length. This is made even more un-
likely when we learn («Chall.»-Ech. p. 138) that «some of the specimens with narrow anal snout char-
acteristic of the smaller specimens measuring from 12—16™™ were nearly r9™™ in length». The con-
clusion seems quite inevitable that this form with the narrow anal snout is a distinct species, which
will perhaps prove identical with P. Zannerz. The material preserved in the British Museum does not
give the solution of the question, since no specimen is found which can with certainty be recognized
as belonging to the narrow type («Chall.»-Ech. Pl. XXXI.7—11). Specimens of the broad type, the real
P. laguncula are preserved from St. 232 and St. 191 (the latter are badly crushed, but can, however, be
recognized as belonging to this form); from St. 169 small fragments only are preserved, which cannot
be recognized as belonging to either of the forms, and the same is the case with the anterior ends

9?

68 ECHINOIDEA. IL

of two specimens from St. 168. A specimen from St. 244 is certainly not P. daguncula; whether it is
the narrow form cannot be decided with certainty, since it is very crushed, but it does not seem to
be that form — in that case the figures Pl. XXXI.7—g9 would indeed be very bad. Probably it is a
third species, related to P. phiale. The spines are widened at the point as in the latter species. Also
the true P. daguncula is represented as having the spines distinctly widened at the point (Pl. XXXI.
Figs. 1—5); in the description they are said (p. 137) to be «tapering very slightly or clubshaped». They
are, in fact, not at all widened or clubshaped, but several of the spines are invested towards the point
with a dark brown matter, the nature of which I could not decide. But in any case it is a foreign
matter, not part of the spine itself. The figures cited therefore give a wrong impression of this species

as regards the form of the spines.

Perhaps one more species, allied to P. /effreyst and Wandeli, will be found to occur in the
northern Atlantic (warm area). Among the specimens of Powrtalesta Wandelt from the «Ingolf» St. 4o
and further from St.67 and 68 there are some small specimens (18—25™™) of a Powrtalesia, which differ
from P. Wandeli in having shorter and smooth (or very little serrate) spines and the abactinal keel
more developed and produced over the periproct; the anal snout bends a little upwards. In fact
these specimens are rather like P. /efreysz; from this species they differ, however, in having only
three epiproctal plates (5.a.6—8 and b.7—9), whereas in /effreyst of a corresponding size there are
four epiproctal plates on each side (a. 5—8, b.6—g); also the anal snout is flatter in /effreysz. The
general shape of the test is as in /. Wandeli, though a little narrower at the anterior end and compa-
ratively a little wider in the middle. The serial arrangement of the tubercles not distinct in the pos-
terior series of plates of the antero-lateral ambulacra. Upon the whole this form is quite intermediate
between P. Wandeli and /effreysi, wniting several of the prominent characters of these two species. It
further agrees rather closely with the form figured as P. miranda in «Panamic Deep-Sea Ech.»,
excepting the labrum, which is not seen from without in these specimens. — Whether this be a
distinct species or only a variety of P. Wandeli (or perhaps a warm area variety of P./effreyst) I do
not venture to decide from the present scanty and not too well preserved material; I must be content
with calling attention to this form and leave it to those who will be so fortunate to get sufficient

material to decide the question.

23. Echinosigra' (Pourtalesia) phiale* Wyv. Thomson.
Pl. VI. Figs. 1—2, 7. Pl. VII, Figs. 1, 7.

Wyville Thomson: Depths of the Sea. p.go. (394). Ann. Nat. Hist. 4 Ser. X. p. 305. «Poreu-
pine»-Echinoidea. p. 749. Pl. LXX. Fig. 11. A. Agassiz: «Challenger»-Echinoidea. p. 138. Pl. XXII
I—5. XXII. a. 1—2. D’Arcy Thompson: (392). Proc. R.Soc. Edinburgh. XXII. 1899. p. 431. — St.
W. Kemp: The Marine Fauna of the West Coast of Ireland. III. Echinoderms. Ann. Rep. Fish. Ireland.

1902—03. Pl. II. App. VI. (1905). p. 206.

« With regard to this name, see below p. 82.

In the Report on the Echinoidea of the «Porcupine» Wyy. Thomson writes «<Akya/e». Both on account of prior-
ity and etymology «AAta/e» is the correct name.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 69

It seems very doubtful, as pointed out by d’Arcy Thompson (Op. cit.) whether the specimen
described and figured by Agassiz in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea is really the same species as the
P. pliale of Wyv. Thomson. The expression «test very much prolonged, almost tubular» does not
seem so very appropriate for the form figured in the «Challenger»-Report, and the figure given by
Wyv. Thomson does not resemble the figures of the «Challenger»-specimen very much either. It
seems, indeed, more like the Pourtalesia paradoxa described below; but Wyv. Thomson’s figure and
description of the P. phzale are not sufficiently detailed for deciding the question, and since the type
specimen does not seem to exist any longer, as I am informed by Professor Bell, we must remain at
the decision made by Professor Agassiz and let the species described and figured as P. phiale in the

Challenger»-Echinoidea keep that name.

Some additions and corrections may be given to Professor Agassiz’ description and figures
of the test of this species. Judging from the Pl. XXII.a. Fig. 2 the odd interambulacrum is constructed
on a rather different plan from what is the case in the other species of Pourtalesiz thus far known,
representing indeed, the most primitive structure of the plastron known among the Pourtalesiz;
the labrum and sternum are represented as being in contact with each other, and likewise the ambu-
lacra I and V are continuous, the interambulacra 1 and 4 not separating the first and the second
plates of these two ambulacra. This more primitive structure is the more surprising as this species
is otherwise a very modified form. On a careful examination of the specimens in hand, I find, how-
ever, that the structure of the test is not as represented by Agassiz; it agrees in the main features
with that of the other species. (Pl. VI. Figs. 1 —2,7). The labrum is large and carries several primary
tubercles; the single plate seen on Pl. XXII.a. Fig. 2 of the «Challenger»-Echinoidea in contact with
the aboral end of the labrum and which de Meijere («Siboga»-Echinoidea. p. 168. Pl. XXI. Fig. 417)
interprets as the sternum, as it would undoubtedly have to be interpreted in case the figure were
correct, does not really exist. In continuation of the labrum follows a pair of large plates the ambu-
lacrals I.a.2 and V.b.2, which at their aboral end separate a little to give room for a large, single
plate, the sternum, which is again followed by a pair of elongated plates, the episternal plates. The
two large plates following the labrum show the curious feature of being divided at their oral end by
a longitudinal line, which does not reach to the middle of the plate. It does not join any other line
and thus does not cut off any separate plate. This feature I have found quite distinct in the three
larger specimens examined by me (among which is one from the Antarctic Sea', from the German
South Polar Expedition); in the two smallest specimens I have been unable to trace the limits of the
plates with certainty.

Both the inner plates of the ambulacra I and V are distinct and rather large and in confor-
mity with the rule: I.a, IJ.a, II.b ete; those of the ambulacra II and IV are much smaller and seem
not to be always in accordance with the rule; thus in the specimen figured Pl. VI. Fig. 7 the plate
II. b was the larger — but the limits of the anterior (especially II. b and IV.a) of these small
plates are generally very difficult to see. The pores and tubefeet are distinct in all the 8 inner plates,
but there is only one in I.a.1 and V.b.1. The plates I.a.1 b.1 and V.a.r. b.1 are in contact with

« In this specimen there is also at the outer end of these plates an indication of such a line; but it does not reach
the line from the oral end, so that the plate is not divided.

ECHINOIDEA. II.

70

the corresponding plates 2, the bivial ambulacra thus not being interrupted by the interambulacra 1
and 4. The inner plate of these interambulacra is small, but distinct, at the edge of the invagination
it is separated from the corresponding second plate by the ambulacral plates II. a.2 and IV. b. 2, some-
times also IV. b. 3, which are prolonged backwards so as to join the ambulacral plates I.b.1 and V.a.1. The
interambulacra 1 and 4 are much prolonged backwards, and the plates 1.a.4 and 4. b. 4 have especially
become very large; in the abactinal part these interambulacra have a forward direction, thus being in
some way bent upon themselves (Fig. 10) — a feature which is carried to the extreme in P. paradoxa
(see Fig. 13. p. 74). In the interambulacrum 1 in the specimen from which the Fig. 10 was made the

plate 1. a. 3 is abnormally divided into two; also the plate designated 1. b. 4 is evidently abnormal.

Fig. 10. Analysis of Part of the test of Powrtalesia phiale.
The plate marked x is probably part of 1.a.3, abnormally separated off from the latter.

Whether any of these plates should be interpreted as being compound (in the sense of Lovén’s He-
teronomy) I do not venture to decide.

The periproct is not sunken; it is surrounded by three epiproctal plates on each side, viz.
5. a.6—8 and b.7—9. The apical system (Pl. VII. Fig. 7) is disconnected as in P. /efreysi; the genital
openings are not developed in the specimens in hand. The primary tubercles are not serially arranged.
— The description and figures of spines\and pedicellarize will be given in the Report on the Echi-
noidea of the German South Polar Expedition, founded on the single, very beautifully preserved
specimen taken by that Expedition. The specimens from the «Ingolf» are smaller (S—13™") and less
well preserved, sufficiently well, however, to ‘show that they agree in every respect so closely with
that from the Antarctic Sea that it is quite out of the question to separate them as a distinct species.

The question whether the antarctic species described in the «Challenger -Report as P. phiale is really

‘ ECHINOIDEA. II. 71
the same as the ?. phiale of Wyv. Thomson from the Rockall Channel, thus loses its interest from a
zoogeographical point of view, since in any case this species really occurs both in the Northern Atlan-
tic and in the Antarctic Sea. (Comp. Uvechinus naresianus.)

This species was taken by the «Ingolf» at the following stations:

St. rr. (64° 34’ Lat. N. 31° 12' Long. W. 1300 fathoms 1°6 C. Bottom temp.). 2 specimens.

— 4o. (62°00! — _ 21°36 = 845 — Besa i an iy Vig =
— 83. (62°25) — 28°30 — 912 — 3°55 = ==. \iey hc

The geographical distribution of the species is: Northern Atlantic (S. of Iceland, Denmark
Strait) and Antarctic Sea. It will doubtless be found to occur all over the Atlantic Ocean. The bathy-
metrical range, as hitherto known, is 845—1975 fathoms.

The very interesting morphological relations of the bivium show that /. pfzale is really one
of the more primitive Pourtalesize, in spite of its modified form. The continuity of the ambulacra I
and V it has in common with Sternopatagus and Pourtalesia carinata, which latter species through
its two pores in the plates I.a.r and V.b.1 as well as by its large labrum, maintains the place as
the least modified of the Povwrtalesta-species, (viz. among those species whose structure of the test is
thus far known)!. Otherwise important light is thrown on the structure of P. cavimata by what has
here been made known of the structure of the actinal part of the test in 7. p/zale. A comparison of
the figure of the actinal side of P. pizale (Pl. VI. Fig. 7) with the Pl. VI. Fig. 42 of Lovén’s «On
Pourtalesia> shows almost beyond doubt that the plates named by Lovén 5.a.2 b.2 and V.a.2 b.2
are wrongly interpreted. The plate named V.b. 2 is seen to agree very closely with the plate V.a.2
in P. phiale; but in case that plate is really V.a.2, which can scarcely be doubted, the plate named
by Lovén 5.a.2 really becomes the ambulacral plate V.b. 2.
To be sure, it is separated from the plate V.b.1, by the corner
of the labrum; but the connection between these two plates in
P. phiale is already so very narrow, that it is very easily con-
ceivable how the total separation has been produced in P. carinata
by the great development of the labrum. The plate «V. a. 2» in
Lovén’s Figure thus becomes a plate of interambulacrum 4.
I may give here a copy of the figure from Lovén with my
interpretation of the plates for the direct comparison with 7. p/zale
Figs. 11 and 12). I think it will be agreed that my interpretation

thereof has all evidence of being the right one. But this leads

to the very important conclusion that Powrtalesta carinata iS yg. 11. Part of Fig. 12. Part of actinal
not amphisternous as thought by Lovén as the result of his, actinal plastron plastron. of Housialesza

i of Pourtalesia cartinata after Lovén.
evidently wrong, interpretation? of the plates in this figure, but phiale.

« De Meijere (Siboga Echin. Pl. XXI. 418 p. 168) represents Echznocrepis cuneata as having the same structure of
the bivial ambulacra, founding his opinion on Pl. XXXV.a.10 of the «Challenger»-Ech. Echinocrepis setigera has its bivial
ambulacra separated by the interambulacra 1 and 4 (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini. Pl. 67. 1, Fig. 167). Also the apical system is
very different in these two species, compact in Ech. cuneata, disconnected in Ech. setigera. It can then scarcely be doubted
that the latter species was unrightly referred to the genus Echinocrepis and will have to be made the type of a new genus.
(Comp. below p. 83—84.)

2 It is of course, the fragmentary condition of his material of this species which has caused that interpretation. Not
knowing the real structure of P. phia/e, Lovén could scarcely interpret these plates in P. cavinata otherwise.

72 ECHINOIDEA. II.

meridosternous — and this is the only reason which Lovén can adduce for maintaining the whole
of the Pourtalesiz as amphisternous. As far as I can see there cannot be the slightest doubt that
Lambert (Etudes morphol. sur le plastron des. Spatangides p. 93) is right in maintaining that the
Pourtalesie are meridosternous (de Meijere also agrees with this); the sternum of the Pourtalesiz is
not a compound plate, representing 5.a.2 + b.2, but a single plate, viz. 5. b. 2. The affinity of the Pourta-
lesice to the Urechinide and Ananchytide cannot then be doubted either, and the systematic position

of the Pourtalesiz as an extreme development of the Axanchytide seems beyond doubt.

24. Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa Mrtsn.
Pl. VI. Figs. 3—6, 17—21. Pl. VII. Figs. 5, 10, 16, 18. Pl. XI. Figs. 2—3, 5—6, 17, 21, 24—25, 27—29, 32, 42—44.

Th. Mortensen. Some new species of Echinoidea. Vid. Medd. Naturh. Foren. Kobenhavn
1905. p. 243-

The shape of the test of this species is very peculiar, highly deviating from the usual form,
so as to be unique in this respect even in a group containing so many curious forms as the Pourtalesize.
Were it not for the comparatively hard test it would by no means be easy to recognise the Echinoid
in this disguise. It is, indeed, an almost quite natural thing to speak of a head, neck, body and tail
in this species, especially in the largest specimen. Nevertheless, it is easy to see that the structure of
the test is in accordance with the other Pourtalesiz, especially with its nearest relation, P. p/zale, the
remarkable transformation being attained simply by the prolongation of some of the plates, mainly a
few of the inner ones in the bivium, of those of the posterior paired interambulacra and an augmenta-
tion in the number of dorsal plates of the posterior interambulacrum.

The test (Pl. VI. Figs. 3—6, 17—21) is very elongated and slender, compressed, distinctly keeled
above and below; the abactinal keel is distinct in the whole length, from the «head» to the anal
area; the actinal keel goes from where the test begins to widen and proceeds to the end of the «tail».
In the anterior, headlike widened end is the invagination characteristic of Pourtalesiz; it is rather
short only about a seventh of the whole length. The front end makes only a rather narrow upper
edge of the invagination. — The «head» continues posteriorly into a long and slender neck, highly
compressed and so very fragile that it is quite remarkable that it is not broken in two of the speci-
mens. One cannot help thinking that it must be rather unpractical and dangerous to have such a
fragile neck and that it would be more safe to have a flexible test, like Prlematechinus vesica e. g. —
The posterior part of the test is much higher and broader than the «neck», forming the «body», in
which is contained the intestine, the neck having room only for the cesophagus. Posteriorly the body
narrows into a rather long and narrow anal snout simulating a tail; it bends a little upwards, and is
as usual surrounded by a rather broad fasciole. The abactinal keel is not produced over the anal
area, which is oval, not much sunken. — The test is rather transparent, the largest specimen brownish,
the smaller ones lighter, almost colourless.

As is seen on comparing figures 3—5 and 6, 18, 20 of Pl. VI the shape of the test becomes
somewhat transformed with age, mainly by the «body» growing comparatively higher and, espe-
cially, broader (thicker); in the larger specimens the «ventral» side is rather flat (though always with

a median keel), the test thus keeping the natural position very easily — a fact probably of no small

ECHINOIDEA. II. 73

importance for the animal, since it is hardly conceivable, how the animal could get the right position
again, if it were turned over, the short spines being hardly able to set up the thick body with its
heavy contents. In the younger specimens the ventral side is not so flat, but the spines are here com-
paratively larger and in so far better adapted for keeping the body in the right position.

Some measurements are given here of the three best preserved specimens; the two larger ones
have only a few small holes in the test; in the third one the neck is broken, but the specimen is
otherwise well preserved. The other specimens are represented by separated anterior and posterior

ends. — All the measurements are in mm.

Total length Width of «head» Width of «neck» Height of «neck» Height of «body» Width of «body» Length of «tail

37 6 3 5 12°5 12 4
26 47 2°5 38 8 55 3°5
22 48 3 35 75 6 35

The structure of the test (Pl. VI. Figs. 17, 19, 21. Pl. VII. Fig.5) is essentially the same as in
P. phiale, the main difference lies in the extreme elongation of the inner plates of the bivium. The
labrum is rather broad and very long, 6°5"™™ in the specimen of 26™" length. The inner plates of the
ambulacra I and V are both well developed, narrow and very elongate, joining at their outer end
the second plate of the corresponding series, the bivial ambulacra thus being uninterrupted. Each of
the inner plates carries a single tube-foot!, the same is the case in the ambulacra II and IV, the
edge of the invagination thus being provided with 8 rather well developed and distinct tube-feet. The
plates I. a, Il.a, I1V.a V.b thus do not carry two pores, but their relative size is in conformity
with the general rule. The inner plate of the interambulacra 1 and 4 is distinct, but, as in p/zale,
separated from the corresponding second plates by the widened ambulacral plates II. a.2—3 and IV.
b.2—4. The labrum joins at its outer end the two ambulacral plates I.a.2 and V.b.2. They are also
very much prolonged, no less than 7:5" in the specimen of 26™™ length, somewhat widened in the outer
half. As in phzale they show the curious feature of being split up at the oral and aboral end by a
longitudinal line proceeding from both ends a long way into the plates; these two lines, however, do
not join in the middle (Pl. VI. Fig. 21), the plates thus being undivided. In this figure the outer part
of the oral end of this plate is seen to be prolonged a considerable distance along the labrum to meet
the first ambulacral plate; in the largest specimen it is — as far as I am able to discern it — not pro-
longed orally down the side of the labrum, in the smaller one it is somewhat prolonged, but not so
much as in the specimen figured here. The sternum is situated very far back; it is not so much pro-
longed, 5™™ long in the specimen figured; the episternal plates which are comparatively rather short
(3™™), reach the point of the anal snout. The epiproctal plates are three on each side, viz. 5.a.6—8 and
b.7—9. The abactinal plates of the odd interambulacrum are not distinctly prolonged, their number
therefore being larger than usual, 15 or 16 in the specimen figured of 26™™ length. The bivial ambu-
lacra begin on the abactinal side at the anterior end of the test, being thus very little separated from
those of the trivium, which occupy the usual position at the anterior end of the test. The posterior

paired interambulacra (1 and 4) are very curiously modified (Fig. 13). The plates a.2 and b.2 are

«In V.a there is exceptionally no pore in the specimen figured (Pl. V. Fig. 21).

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV, 2. 10

ECHINOIDEA. II.

pushed far backwards, separated from the small inner plate at the peristome not only by the ambu-
lacral plates IV. b.2—4 and II.a.2—3, the posterior one of them being much prolonged backwards
along the ambulacral plates V.a.1 and

I. b. 1, but also by the interambulacral

~~

(\ 147 plates 4.a.4 and 1.b.4—5, which join

the ambulacral plates V. a. r—2 and
I. b. r—2 for a long way. The plates
I.a.4 and 4.b.4 are very much en-
larged, and upon the whole all the
plates of these interambulacra are
unusually large. As in Ahzale these

interambulacra are very much bent

frum)

upon themselves, the median part

b

( Lat

being near the posterior end, where-
as the upper and lower end is at
the anterior end of the animal. That
the interpretation of the plates given
here is correct seems beyond doubt,
from a comparison with P. phzale

(Fig. 10), in which the interpretation

lies quite evident. — The plates of
the antero-lateral ambulacra and in-
terambulacra are rather small, in
accordance with the small size of

the «head». The odd anterior am-

bulacrum contains ca. 14 pairs of
plates; I have been unable to count
the number with full certainty. The
invagination is comparatively small,
but otherwise of the usual form.
The peristome is almost round, cov-
ered with rather large plates. The

mouth is a little below the middle.

The

The apical system is situa-
(Sternum) Sternum) #

gE
pe or

—

ted near the anterior end; from the

. : . outside I was unable to see the
Fig. 13. Analysis of part of the test of Pour/alesia paradoxa.

limits of the plates in this region

with any certainty, but from the inside most of them could be distinctly seen (Fig. 14). Probably the

plate just behind the large inner prolongation from the madreporic plate will really be divided in

two, but I could not distinguish any line there. Also the small innermost plate of the antero-lateral

ECHINOIDEA. II.

“NI
un

interambulacra (posterior series) is a little uncertain, as I was unable to see distinctly the limit betwen
it and the ankylosed genital plate. :

There are only two genital openings, covered by long genital papilla; it is probably the an-
terior pair which is found, the posterior pair having disappeared, evidently because there is no room
for more than one pair of genital organs. The madre-
poric pores are rather few in number (PI. VI. Fig. 17),
placed behind the genital pores; in the specimen of 26™™
there are only two madreporic pores. The genital openings
are present only in the two larger specimens and in a
separated head-end. The smaller specimen shows no trace
of genital openings. This species thus is not mature till a
rather considerable size, since a specimen of 22™" is im-
mature.

The primary spines are rather scarce, only along
the actinal and abactinal keel they are close-set; also along
the anterior border they are more numerous; there is no
serial arrangement of the spines. They are all short, the

longest scarcely reaching 3™ length; they are curved,

widened towards the point, which is generally bifid (Pl. XL.

Ar

Fig. 14. Apical region of Pourlalesia paradoxa.
From the inside.

Fig. 44); they are more or less serrate, generally more on
one side than on the other. Those along the plastron
are somewhat more widened than the abactinal ones; those
on the posterior end of the abactinal keel bend down over the anal area. The spines within the oral
invagination (Pl. XI. Fig. 21) are, as usual, coarser and stronger than those on the outside; they are
curved and more or less sharply serrate along the concave side. The miliary spines (Pl. XI. Fig. 43)
are likewise rather scarce in number; they are only ca. o5™™ in length, curved towards the point
which forms a somewhat widened, slightly fenestrated plate. The clavule of the fasciole are somewhat
stronger, with a rather complicated widening at the point (Pl. XI. Fig. 42).

The tube-feet along the border of the invagination and those of the odd anterior ambulacrum
are rather well developed, though, of course, simple. They contain rather numerous irregular spicules,
(Pl. VII. Fig. 18) arranged in a longitudinal series. In the tip of the foot is generally found a small
caleareous ring, evidently corresponding to the more developed cap (or, as it really is, ring) found in
Pourtalesia Jeffreys’ and Wandeli (comp. Pl. VI. Fig. 21). — The sphzeridiz are placed singly behind
the tube-feet along the border of the invagination. They are of the usual shape, quite smooth, except
at the lower end (Pl. XI. Fig. 25).

The pedicellarie are represented by three kinds, viz. tridentate, rostrate and ophicephalous; no
globiferous pedicellariz have been found. The tridentate pedicellariz occur in different forms, which
are, however, connected by transitions. The smaller ones (Pl. XI. Fig. 2) have a short, oval blade, finely
serrate along the edge, except in the lower part; they differ rather much from those of Powrt. Jef

Jreyst ete. by the apophysis continuing into the edge of the blade, whereas in the other species it

10*

76 ECHINOIDEA. II.
ends down on the sides. not reaching the edge. There is a somewhat larger, though very inconspicuous
tooth at the point. In larger specimens (PI. XI. Fig. 24) the valves become more slender and elongated
and the tooth at the point more prominent, and-in the largest ones (ca. o02™™ head) the tooth at the
point is very long, the blade narrow, the edges serrate only in the outer part, where the valves join.
(Pl. XI. Fig. 5.) — The rostrate pedicellarie (Pl. XI. Figs. 17, 27, 28) differ considerably from those of
PJeffreysi and Wandel. The blade has not the outer edge sharply set off from the sides; the point
is simply rounded, set with some slender teeth, which continue some way down the side-edges; the
edges are rather thick, having only a small deepening along the middle of the blade with few holes
there, and sometimes near the point a transverse beam, which may be provided with a tooth. These
pedicellariz may be invested in a rather thick, pigmented skin. — The ophicephalous pedicellarice
(PI. XI. Figs. 3, 6,32) are not so beautifully developed as in Jeffreys: and Wandcli, though agreeing
in the main points with these. The outer end of the valves is hardly widened and with rather few
teeth along the edge. I have found only two specimens of them, at the anal area. Also the rostrate
pedicellarize occur mainly near the anal area; the larger tridentate pedicellariz I have found within
the oral invagination.

Regarding the inner anatomy I cannot give full information, as I do not want to destroy
one of the better preserved specimens. In a crushed specimen the intestine is preserved; the walls
are, however, so incrusted with the Globigerina-mud, which fills the intestine, that it is impossible to
discern the convolutions with certainty; likewise I am unable to ascertain the presence of a diverti-
culum or of the siphones, though it can scarcely be doubtful that they will be present as in other
Pourtalesie. — As in P. Jeffreyst and Wandeli the genital organs differ considerably in shape in the
two sexes: large, bush-shaped in the males, simple tubes in the female. The male genital organs are
situated one behind the other, far back, the posterior one at the beginning of the «body», and connect
with the genital openings through very long efferent ducts, passing up the whole length of the neck.
(Pl. VII. Fig. 16.) In the female the genital organs are situated in the «head», having rather short oviducts.
(Pl. VIL. Fig. ro). The stone-canal evidently runs as in P. /efreys?, making a great curve backwards,
following the intestine into the body; to be sure I have been unable to trace it in its whole length,
only the two ends of it (Pl. VII. Fig. 16), but the fact that it passes backwards through the whole
length of the neck along the dorsal side does not leave any doubt that its course must upon the
whole be as in ?. /effreyst. There is a slight thickening, representing the axial organ, near the upper
end of the canal. Below the ankylosed genital-madreporic plate there is a rather large calcareous pro-
cess, to which the end of the stone-canal is fastened. The radial water-canals of the bivium are very
thin and inconspicuous, those of the trivium are more distinct; ampullz I have been unable to find.

This species was taken by the «Ingolf» at the following stations:

St. 4o (62° oo' Lat. N. 21° 36’ Long. W. 895 fathoms 3°3 C. Bottom temp.) 1 specimen.
— 68 (62°06' — 22°30 — 843, — 3°4 — — 1(2?) — (fragments)
— 83 (62°255 — 28°30 912 — 35 = ae — (two in fragments).

The species is thus known only from off Southwest Iceland, from a depth of 843—9r2 fathoms.
That it will prove to be distributed over a large part of the warm area of the northern Atlantic can

scarcely be doubted,

ECHINOIDEA. II.

“I
“NI

The nearest relation of P. (Echinosigra) paradoxa is P. (Echinosigra) phiale; it agrees with that
species in the main features of the test, as also in the pedicellarize and spines. That it is a distinct species
and not only representing the grown form of P. A/zale is beyond doubt, as is easily seen by a direct
comparison of the largest specimen of Axzal/e (17™™) with the smallest specimen of paradoxa (22™); both
these specimens show all the characteristics of their species quite distinctly developed — it would be
quite unreasonable to think that a form like that figured in PILVI. Figs. 1-—2,7 (phzale) could be trans-
formed into a form like that figured in Pl. VI. Figs. 17, 19, 21 (Jaradoxa) during the growth from a
length of 17™™ to a length of 22™™, The fact alone that in the specimen of phcale of 17™™ the lowest
part of the anterior end is 5™™ high, whereas in the specimen of paradoxa of 22" the neck is only
3°5™™ high, is sufficient to prove them to be two distinct species.

A form like this species is, evidently, only fit to inhabit the soft bottom of the deep sea; in
less quiet regions it would run the risk of breaking the neck. Lovén (On Pourtalesia. p.85) thinks
that several of the more important characters of the Pourtalesie point «though remotely, towards
animal forms of another and higher type, animals of annulose differentiation». Had be known the
species here described, he would probably have seen a confirmation of this view herein, except as
regards the «annulose differentiation», of which there is no trace. One might easily fancy how such a
form, if it proved favourable in the struggle for life and the species therefore became numerous and
wide spread, might give rise to quite new types, in which the Echinoid organization would scarcely
be recognizable. — It is, however, more probable that this form represents an extreme development,
the ultimate end of that branch of the great Echinoid genealogical tree.

I may here give some additional information, mainly on the pedicellarize of the other species
of Pourtalesize which I have had occasion to examine in the British Museum.

Pourtalesia carinata A. Ag. Regarding the structure of the test of this species I may refer to
the remarks above (p. 71), in which I think it is shown beyond doubt that the two plates following
the labrum are not a double sternum, as it is interpreted by Lovén, but the ambulacral plates La. 2
and V.b.2, the species thus agreeing with P. pAdiale and paradoxa in this respect. The material pre-
served in the British Museum, unfortunately, does not allow one to state this by direct observation, no
specimen having more of the plastron left than what has been figured by Lovén. In the «Challenger
Report are given several figures of the pedicellarize, which in the explanation of plates are named:
large-headed, hooked pedicellaria, large-based, slender-pronged and Clypeastroid-like pedicellaria. In
the description they are not mentioned. I have found three kinds of pedicellarize in this species, viz.
globiferous, rostrate and tridentate. The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XI. Figs. 16,22) have the valves
ending in two (sometimes three) rather large teeth; it is this form which is figured in the «Challenger
Report Pl. XLV. Fig. 49, as a «large-based, slender-pronged valve». The head is invested in a thick,
evidently glandular skin; there is no neck; the stalk is rather compact. The rostrate pedicellarize
(Pl. XI. Fig. 39) are of a peculiar form; the basal part of the valves is very broad, with finely serrate
edges; the narrow blade is short and thick, with the outer edge rounded, not forming an angle with
the} side-edges; it is rather coarsely serrate, the teeth continuing a little way down the side-edges.
The tridentate pedicellarize are richly developed; in the larger forms there is a very long tooth at the

point, in smaller ones this tooth is less prominent, or not at all differing in size from the teeth along

48 ECHINOIDEA. II.
is

the side-edges. In Pl. XLII. 24—25, Pl. XLII. Fig. 20 and XLV. Figs. 46—48, 50 of the «Challenger» Echini
different forms of tridentate pedicellarize are rather well represented, to which figures the reader may be
referred. I only want to call attention to the fact that the apophysis continues into the edges of the blade
as in paradoxa, a noteworthy difference from /ef/reys? etc. On the other hand it seems rather problem-
atic what may be meant by the figures 21—23 of Pl. XLIII in that work. In the explanation of the
plate they are said to represent different views of Clypeastroid-like» pedicellarize; this generally means
ophicephalous pedicellaria, but these figures can scarcely represent the ophicephalous pedicellarize,
always so easily recognizable e. g. by the cupshaped upper end of the stalk. It may be suggested that
the figure 23 represents a globiferous or perhaps a rostrate pedicellaria; what the two other figures
represent I feel unable to give a reasonable suggestion of, the fig. 22 especially seems quite enigmatic.
— The miliary spines are of a rather characteristic form (Pl. XI. Fig. 38), the outer end is curved and
rather thick, almost or quite smooth. — The spicules mainly as in P. paradoxa, only a little larger;
the ring at the point of the foot is more developed, more like that figured of P. Jeffreys.

It is well worth noticing that this species agrees rather closely with P. paradoxa (and phiale)
as regards the tridentate and rostrate pedicellarize, besides in the structure of the test; it can scarcely
be doubted that they are rather nearly related, but the shape of the test and the fact that there are
two pores in the ambulacral plates I.a.1 and V.b.1 show P. carinata to be the more primitive form.

Pourtalesia hispida A. Ag. is stated in the «Challenger» Echini (p. 136) to be nearly related to
P. Jeffreysi, whereas later on («Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» p. 141) Professor Agassiz is inclined to think
it so distant from all the other species that it ought to form the type of a new genus. Unfortunately
the structure of the plastron was not worked out in the «Challenger» Echini, and there is now no
specimen in the British Museum with the plastron completely preserved. From what is preserved it
seems, however, almost certain that this species agrees with P./efreysi in the structure of the plastron,
The labrum is very small and the two adjoining ambulacral plates very large, especially V.b.1. It
may further be noticed that the abactinal plates of the odd posterior interambulacrum are not so
distinctly alternating as shown in Pl. XXII. Fig.19 of the «Challenger» Ech. they are paired as in
P. Jeffreyst, at least the posterior six pairs. In the shape of the test 2. Azspeda reminds one rather
much of P. Wandeli, as also the very conspicuous serial arrangement of the primary spines sgmewhat
recalls that species. The primary spines are thorny as in P. Wandeli, but much shorter. Only one
kind of pedicellariz was found, viz. tridentate. (Pl. XI. Fig. 31). They agree with those of /efreysz and
Wandelt, the apophysis ending far down on the sides of the blade, another feature speaking in favour
of that relationship. They grow a little larger than in these species. In my preparation of pedicellarize
of this species I find a pair of globiferous and ophicephalous pedicellarize resembling exactly those of
Urechinus Wyvillit. Since the specimen examined was from St. 147, from which station likewise Urech.
Wyoillit is recorded, I suppose that these pedicellarize really belong to the latter species and have
accidentally got between the spines of Pourt. hispida.

Pourtalesia ceratopyga A. Ag. The structure of the bivium of this species is unknown, but judg-
ing from the edge of the actinal invagination, as made known by Lovén, it may well be suggested
that it will prove to have the bivial ambulacra uninterrupted as in carénata, The plastron is not pre-

served in any of the specimens in the British Museum. In a fragment from St. 299 I find two pores

ECHNIOIDEA. It. 79

in the ambulacral plate V.b.1, but not in I.a.r. I may call attention to the fact that the abactinal plates
of the odd interambulacrum are alternating, not paired as in 7. /ef/reysi, as correctly figured by Agas-
siz and Lovén. The pedicellariz are upon the whole well figured in the «Challenger»-Report, though
no mention is made of them in the text. The forms figured there are globiferous, ophicephalous and
tridentate. The globiferous pedicellariz (figured in Pl. XLV. Fig. 56 as a «broad based, slender-pronged,
and hooked pedicellaria») agree rather closely with those of /. carinafa. The ophicephalous pedicel-
larie (figured in Pl. XLII. Fig. 18, XLII. Fig. 16 and XLV. Figs. 53—54 as «Clypeastroid-like» pedi-
cellarize) differ from those of P. Jeffreys in having more numerous teeth along the edge of the ter-
minal widening, and these teeth continue along the «dorsal» side of the widening, whereas in Jeffreys?
they are only found along the inner side. This feature is well shown on Pl. XLV.53. — The pedi-
cellaria figured in Pl. XLII. 17 is said to be a «small Clypeastroid-like» (ophicephalous) pedicellaria.
This must, evidently, be a mistake; the long neck shows that it is no ophicephalous pedicellaria, this
form of pedicellaria being always devoid of a neck in the Irregular Echini. Probably it is a small
tridentate pedicellaria like that figured in Pl. XLII. 20, only with the valves opened. The tridentate
pedicellarize occur in two forms; probably there will be found intermediate forms as in carinata, but
I have not found such. The smaller form has simply leafshaped, more or less elongate valves, with
the apophysis continuing into the edges, (figured in Pl. XLII. 1g—20, XLII. 15 and XLV. 59 as «large-
headed» pedicellarize); the end-tooth is only little prominent in the larger ones. The larger form
(Pl. XLII. 17, XLV. 57—58) has very slender, narrow valves, ending in a rather short hook and with
the edges serrate only near the point; this is a rather large form, the head reaching a length of ca, 0-7™™.

Regarding Pourtalesia rosea A. Ag. it is stated in the «Challenger»-EKchinoidea (p. 140) that «the
tuberculation of this species, and the shape of the test, must have been very similar to that of .Powr-
talesta ceratopyga». In the British Museum are preserved only the anal snout represented in Pl. XXII. a.
Figs. 3—5 and some very poor fragments connected with a genital organ; from these fragments alone
it is certainly impossible to judge of the shape of the test — it seems even not very likely that they
belong to one species. The figures given in the «Challenger» Ech. do not give a better proof of the
shape of the test; the apical area figured in Pl. XXII.a. Fig.6 with the large thin plates, showing
distinct concentric striation, recalls much more the thin plated Cys¢echinus clypeatus than a species of
Pourtalesia, and it still more resembles the apical system of Sternopatagus as pointed out by de
Meijere (Op.cit. p. 163). (I have been unable to detect the apical system among the fragments pre-
served in the British Museum). I want to maintain that there is no proof in the description and figures
given in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea, and neither is such proof afforded by the fragments preserved
in the British Museum, that the apical system figured Pl. XXII. a Fig.6 really belongs to the same
species as that to which the anal snout figured in the same plate Figs.3—5 belongs, and I for my
part think it probable that this apical system does not belong to any /owrtalesia at all, no other
species of this genus having a compact apical system. To be sure, Duncan states in his «Revision
(p. 282) that the apical system of P. miranda is compact like that of P. rosea, as can «most distinctly
be seen on the Pl. XVIII. Fig.g of the «Revision of Echini». This figure, however, only shows four
genital openings close together — it does not show anything of plates, especially of the posterior

ocular plates. Until P. miranda has been rediscovered and carefully examined we may think it probable

80 ECHINOIDEA. II.

that its apical system is like that of P. dagwncula, evidently its nearest relation. (Lovén. On Pour-
talesia. Pl. VII. Fig. 52).

I have found two kinds of pedicellariz*in PP. vosea, viz. ophicephalous and tridentate. The
ophicephalous pedicellariz (Pl. XI. Fig. 26) are rather large, with elongated, slender valves. The ter-
minal widening is smaller and has fewer teeth than in P. cera/opyga. ‘The tridentate pedicellaricze (only
one form found) have simply leafshaped valves; the endtooth is a little prominent, the apophysis con-
tinues into the edges of the blade (Pl. XI. Fig. 15). I have noticed especially that the ophicephalous
pedicellaricze were found on the fragment of the posterior end (— about the tridentate pedicellarize I
have forgot to notice that especially, so they may perhaps belong to the other fragments —); they
are sufficiently characteristic for distinguishing this species from any other of the species hitherto
known of this genus — and, evidently, it is the species represented by the anal snout-fragment which
must keep the name Pourtalesta rosea, not that represented by the fragment with the apical system,
which is probably no Powrtalesva at all. The affinities of Pouwrtalesia rosea must, of course, be left
undecided, so long as we know almost nothing of its shape and structure of test!

Pourtalesia laguncula A. Ag. and Tannert A. Ag. have been treated above (p. 67).

The question whether all the species referred to the genus Pourfalesia can rightly remain to-
gether in this single genus has repeatedly been treated. In the «Challenger»-Report (p. 132) Professor
Agassiz comes to the result that all the species must remain in one genus, though the character of
the test seems to indicate two natural groups (?. cerafopyga and rosea forming one group, the rest of
the species another); in his last great work «The Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» he is inclined to think
that «the striking differences found in the various groups of species of Pourtalesia would seem to
warraut the splitting up of the genus Pourtalesia into subsections. We might retain the name of the
genus, Pourtalesia, for the bottle-shaped types allied to P. mzranda, such as P. Tanneri, P. laguncila,
P. Jefireyst, and form a section of the genus for the elongate P. pAzale and another for the stout-
tested P. ceratopyga and P. rosea. P. hispida may yet be found to belong to a special genus». (Op. cit.
p- 141). Duncan (Revision. p. 285) excludes from the genus ?. miranda and rosea on account of their
compact apical system and their postero-lateral interradia being separated dorsally. — Neither Agassiz
nor Duncan propose new generic names for the subdivisions. Pomel (Classification méthodique (324)
p- 40) goes more radically to work. He divides the group into four genera. Powrtalesia is restricted to
the species miranda, hispida and (?) phiale; a new genus, Phyalopsis, is established for P. lagencula,
another genus, Ceratophysa, tor P. rosea and ceratopyga, and a third genus, Phyale, for P. /effreyst and
probably, P. carinata.

I cannot agree with any of these proposed divisions of the genus; especially those proposed
by Pomel seem to me very unfortunate and quite in disaccordance with the natural relations of the
species. Also Duncan’s exclusion of ?. miranda from the genus Pourtalesia is very unfortunate, first
because it is the type species of the genus, and further because its apical system is, in all probability,

' De Meijere (Siboga-Ech. p. 169) finds the statement that the bivial ambulacra are in mutual contact only on the
abactinal side «so dass das Sternum héchstens von den benachbarten Ambulacren unterbrochen sein kann» in Duncan’s
remarks Op. cit. p. 281. As far as I can see this is not the meaning of Duncan, on the contrary, he probably means to say

that in P. yosea and miranda there is no contact on the abactinal side between the two postero-lateral interradia. In any
case no new information on the structure of these two species is given there by Duncan.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 81

disconnected like that of P. dagancula. It is beyond doubt that in a restriction of the genus the name
Pourtalesia has to be retained for the group of species to which 7. mzranda belongs. Thus far I agree
with Agassiz, whose above cited proposition of a subdivision of the genus is evidently much more
in accordance with the natural relations of the species than Duncan’s and Pomel’s subdivisions.
Nevertheless I cannot fully accept Agassiz’ subdivisions either.

On reviewing the characters of the species it seems to me that one feature may reasonably be
taken to be of primary importance for a grouping of the species, viz. whether the bivial ambulacra are
interrupted by the postero-lateral interambulacra or not. Also the shape of the test seems rather im-
portant, whereas pedicellariz and spines seem to be of secondary importance. The character of the
apical system, whether it is disconnected or compact, cannot be used, all the species thus far known
having in fact a disconnected apical system‘.

The bivial ambulacra are continuous in carivata (almost certain!), phiale, paradoxa and pro-
bably ceratopyga, disconnected in the other species (7. rosea, hispida and miranda are unknown in this
respect, but the two latter may well be supposed to have them disconnected). Further it is to be re-
marked that /. carimata differs from all the other species in having two pores and tube-feet in the
ambulacral plates I.a.1 and V.b.1. (P. vosea and miranda again are unknown in this respect, though
the latter may doubtless be supposed to have the pores single as in /aguncula etc.). Finally it may
perhaps be a character of some importance whether the dorsal plates of the odd posterior interambu-
lacrum are paired or alternating, the latter being, of course the more primitive structure; they are
alternating in P. carinata and ceratopyga, paired in /Jeffreyst, Wandeli, hispida, laguncula, Tanneri,
phiale and paradoxa. Upon the whole this character evidently cannot, however, be taken too rigorously,
the paired plates generally showing more or less distinct traces of their originally alternating condition.
In typical examples the difference between these structures is very conspicuous, as seen e. g. by a
comparison of Figs.51 and 52. Pl. VII in Lovén’s: On Pourtalesia. In accordance with the characters
pointed out here as the more important, I think the following grouping of the species will prove to

be the natural one:

1. Bivial ambulacra continuous; two pores in the ambulacral plates I. a.1 and
V.b.1. Test not especially widened or elongate. Dorsal plates of odd
Mmiterambilacrum (altermatmot (eet. ee SYSOP re P. carinata.
2. Bivial ambulacra continuous; one pore in the plates I.a.t and V.b.1. Test
very elongate; dorsal plates of odd interambulacrum paired. ............ P. phiale and paradoxa.
3. Bivial ambulacra (probably) continuous; one pore (sometimes two) in the
plates I.a.1 and V.b.1. Dorsal plates of odd interambulacrum alternating.
Mesurmuchewitened anteriorly. Cis ee keels Petes eee meres te cee P. ceratopyga.
4. Bivial ambulacra disconnected; one pore in the plates Ia.1 and V.b.1.
Dorsal plates of odd interambulacrum paired. Test not especially widened
Ore! GORE 8.3 nce ots a ond Ol ROR Rme en camaideic ble Cac ORO UIE SOCOOD ornare P. lasuncula, miranda (?),
Unknown: P. rosea. Tannert, Jeffreyst, Wandelt and hispida.

t Whether the genital plates be separate or not, seems to be a character of small importance, since both cases may
occur in the same species. Likewise the presence or absence of the labrum is of small importance, as shown by its great
variation in P, Jeffreys? and Wandeli.

The Ingolf-Expedition, IV. 2. I!

82 ECHINOIDEA. II.

If we take these four groups to represent genera, or at least subgenera, which seems not at
all unreasonable, the latter group must keep the name Pourtalesva. Of the names proposed by Pomel
two become synonyms only of Powrtalesia, viz.-Phyalopsis (for laguncula) and Phyale (tor /Jeffreysz).
Only the name Ceratophysa may be retained; P. rosea is named as the first species of this genus, but
the diagnosis is made from ceratopyga. The latter species must then be taken as the genotype. For
the two other groups I may propose the names: //elgocystis and Echinosigra.

The old genus Pourtalesia is thus divided into four genera (or subgenera), viz.:

Helgocystis n. g. with the species cavimata (A. Ag.).

Echinosigra u. g. with the species p/zale (W. Th.) (genotype) and favadoxa (Mrtsn.).
Ceratophysa Pomel with the species ceratopyga (A. Ag.).

Pourtalesia A. Ag. with the species miranda A. Ag. (genotype), daguncula A. Ag, Tanneri A. Ag.,

Jeffreysi W.Th., Wandelt Mrtsn. and hispida A. Ag.

Perhaps the species /efreyst, Wandeli and hispida may yet prove to form a separate genus,
which would then get the name yale Pomel.; for the present, however, it seems not necessary to
separate these species from the genus /owrfalesia, though it must be conceded that they form a dis-
tinct group in that genus, differing from the other species in the shape of the test. P. Zanneri, how-
ever, is in some way intermediate between the two groups (by its narrow anal snout). That it should

be necessary to make P. /isfida the type of a separate genus there is no reason to suppose.

Spatagocystis Challengert A. Ag. has been very carefully worked out, especially in the « Panamic
Deep-Sea Echini» (p. 141), as regards the structure of the test. Three kinds of pedicellariz have been
figured in the «Challenger»-Report (Pl. XLII. 1o—12 and XLV. 39—43), though — as is mostly the
case in that work — not mentioned in the text. I have found (on specimens examined in the British
Museum) two kinds of pedicellarie, viz. tridentate and rostrate. Further I find in my preparation a
single globiferous and an ophicephalous pedicellaria resembling exactly those of Urechinus MWyvalli.
As the specimens examined proceed from St.147 from which station also Uvrech. Wyvillit is recorded,
I think these pedicellarizee do really belong to that species, having only accidentally got between those
of Spatagocystis. The tridentate pedicellariz are richly developed, occurring in at least two different
forms, viz. one with simply leafshaped, more or less slender valves with the apophysis continuing into
the edge of the blade (PI. X. Fig. 20 represents a small specimen of the slender form; larger specimens
are rather similar to those of chinocrepis cuncata), and another with rather short, broad valves, nar-
rowed in the lower part of the blade and terminating in a more or less prominent hook (PI. X. Fig. 10);
this is evidently the form figured in the «Challenger»-Report Pl. XLII. 10 and Pl. XLV. 39—4o0 as a
large-headed» pedicellaria. I have not found so much meshwork in this as figured in the Pl. XLV.
4o of the «Challenger»; there is often nothing at all. The form figured in Pl. XLII. 12, evidently an-
other form of tridentate pedicellaria, I have not seen. The rostrate pedicellarize, figured as «short-
headed, toothed, cup-pronged» pedicellariee (Pl. XLII. 11 and XLV. 41 and 43), are of a quite typical
form, with the outer edge of the rather short and broad blade provided with ca. 10—16 thick teeth
(Pl. X. Fig, 18); the edge of the basal part is generally closely serrate, though not always so regularly

as in the specimen here figured. The stalk is more or less thorny (Pl. X. Fig. 35). — There is a very

ECHINOIDEA. II. 83

distinct calcareous cap in the point of the tube-feet (Pl. VII. Fig. 17), though not formed by one plate.
The spicules are of the usual form, lying in two close longitudinal series.

Echinocrepis cuncata A. Ag. In this species the bivial ambulacra are evidently uninterrupted
(«Chall.»-Ech. Pl. XX XV. a. 10), as is also pointed out by de Meijere («Siboga»-Ech. p. 168). In «Pan.
Deep-Sea Ech.» p. 147 Agassiz states that «the arrangement of the actinal plates of Lchinocrepis
cuncata is, according to Lovén (Pourtalesia. Pl. VII. Fig. 53), much like that of Spatagocystis Chal-
lengert ....» which seems to mean that the bivial ambulacra are interrupted by the interambulacra 1
and 4. This can, however, not be deduced from the small fragment figured by Lovén, and the figure
from the «Chall.»-Ech. quoted above does not seem to be so very incorrect, as it would be, in case
the species really agreed with Sfafagocystis in this respect. Also Tovén states expressly (p. 17) that
he considers Echinocr. cuneata to differ «in a marked manner» from 7. J/ef/reyst, laguncula ete. in
having the bivial ambulacra uninterrupted. Unfortunately the specimen in the British Museum does
not afford any solution of the question, the plastron not being preserved. The apical system! is com-
pact, the postero-lateral (bivial) ambulacra not being separated from the rest of the apical system
through intercalated plates, as has been shown by Tovén (On Pourtalesia. Pl. VII. Fig. 54); I may
further point out the fact that the dorsal plates of the odd interambulacrum are not paired, but alter-
nating (as seen in this same figure) evidently a more primitive condition. Of pedicellaricze I have seen
only one kind, viz. tridentate. The small ones are of the common simple leafshaped form, with the
apophysis continuing into the edges of the blade; the larger form is figured in the «Challenger»-Re-
port Pl. XLV. Fig. 44, I have only to add that generally there is a wingshaped keel along the dorsal
side of the blade (PI. X. Fig. 39). The spicules are rather numerous, simple or triradiate.

Echinocrepis setigera A. Ag. differs from /. cuncata in several important features. The bivial
ambulacra are interrupted on the actinal side by the postero-lateral interambulacra, and the apical
system is disconnected. I have found three kinds of pedicellarize (on some small fragments exanuned in
the U.S. National Museum), viz. tridentate, rostrate and ophicephalous. The tridentate pedicellariz are
of the common form, with simple leafshaped valves (only a small specimen seen). The rostrate pedi-
cellarize (Pl. X. Fig. 12) are more or less elongate, the outer edge finely serrate. (Perhaps this form is
not really the rostrate, but another kind of tridentate pedicellariz.) The ophicephalous pedicellarize

(Pl. X. Figs. 3, 33) are somewhat smaller and more longstalked than usual; otherwise they do not differ

1 Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Ech. p. 131) says that «the plates of the apical system of Echzxocrepis are not as they
have been described by de Meijere; those of the bivium are well separated by the posterior lateral interambulacra from
those of the trivium. There are the two posterior ocular plates, and the anterior ones are ankylosed, the oculars of the tri-
vium being lost and occupied by the madreporite. (Pls. 67. fig. 2; 69, figs. 3, 4)». Quite apart from the fact that Agassiz
here is in evident contradiction to his own statement (p. 146) that in Lchinocrepis setigera «the ocular plate can only be
traced in the odd anterior ambulacrum. In the crowding due to the intrusion of the intercalated and interambulacral plates
between the bivium and the trivium they (— evidently the other ocular plates —) have been pushed out of place or resorbed»,
jt may be stated that de Meijere’s description («Siboga»-Ech. p. 162) is quite correct, his description being based on
Lovén's Figure 54. Pl. VII (On Pourtalesia), as expressly named, and it is Lchtnocrepis cuneata whose apical system is
described, as is also expressly said, not £. setigera, to which Agassiz refers. Further de Meijere remarks (p. 164) «Nach
Agassiz’ Figur (viz. Pl. XIII. 1 of the Prelim. Report on the «Albatross»-Echini) scheint die von der «Albatross»-Expedition
erbeutete Echinocrepis setigera auch ein ebensolches, aus einander geriicktes Apicalsystem zu besitzen, wie Sfa/agocystts Us. w.
und wiirde sich somit von Z£. cuzea/a scharf unterscheiden». De Meijere’s description of the plates of Echinocrepis is thus
quite correct.

1 te

84 ECHINOIDEA. II.

essentially from those of other Pourtalesiae". — These differences in the pedicellarie are certainly not
very important, and probably “ch. cuneata will also prove to have both ophicephalous and rostrate
pedicellariz. The more important are the differences in the apical system and the bivial ambulacra,
so important, indeed, that it seems quite unnatural to unite the two species in one genus. I think
it necessary to create a new genus for seéigera, for which I may propose the name Cystocrepis n. g.
Also the difference in the shape of the test is very conspicuous, though perhaps not reliable for

a generic character.

Regarding the systematic position of the family Powxtaleswde I quite agree with de Meijere,
who has in a most skilful manner discussed the whole question («Siboga»-Ech. p. 160—71); it seems to
me that he has shown beyond doubt that the Pouwrtalesiide represent a very special development
from the Ananchytide, the highly interesting genus Sternofatagus being in many respects a transitional
form between the Pourtalesiide and the Ananchytide, though already decidedly belonging to the
former family. (I can not agree with Agassiz, who thinks Svernopafagus more related to the dAxan-
chytide whereas, on the other hand, he refers the genus Plexechinus — in my opinion undoubtedly
an Urechinid — to the Pourtalesude).

It is Lambert’s merit to have first emphasized (in his excellent Etudes morphologiques sur

le plastron des Spatangides»)? that the difference between the meridosternous and the amphisternous
structure of the plastron in the Spatangoids is of primary systematic importance, so that the whole of
the recent Spatangoids may be divided into Meridosterni and Amphisterni, names given by Loven,
who did not, however, clearly point out the importance of these different structures, which he had
detected. The two types cannot be derived one from the other, but must have derived from forms
with a simple, unmodified structure of the odd interambulacrum, something like what is found in
Dysaster and the Cassidulide. To be sure, Agassiz (Pan. Deep-Sea Ech. p. 164) thinks that Lambert
has himself given us the best possible proof of the accuracy of Lovén’s view of the development of
the amphisternal from the meridosternal plastron. The development of the adult amphisternal Abatus
from a meridosternal young (Pl. 99. 1—5,8) seems to settle this question in favour of Lovén’s view».
But, as is easily seen, the young Aéatus represented in Pl. 99.3 does not show the slightest trace of
a meridosternous structure, both the plates 5.a.2 and b.2 being in wide contact with the labrum,
whereas the meridosternous structure, as is well known, means that only one plate (b. 2) is in contact
with the outer end of the labrum. The specimen figured by Agassiz might perhaps be said to have
as yet no sternum developed, the plates 5.a.2 and b.2 being rather small, though distinctly larger
than the following ones. At most this stage can show that the amphisternum is derived from a primitive
structure, where no sternum is developed as yet; in this way Lambert3 refers to the figure of a
young Paleopneustes cristatus in the «Blake»-Echini (Pl. XXI. 11) as showing «comment on doit com-
prendre le développement amphisterne du plastron, qui procéde d’un état originaire ott les plaques
sont semblables dans toutes les aires interradiales, comme chez les Cassidulides».

' Whether it is the ophicephalous pedicellarize, which «are brilliant glassy heads standing out like miniature spheres
on the dark test» (Pan. Deep-Sea Ech. p. 147) I dare not say.

sull. Soc. de l’Yonne. 1892.

i} Note sur quelques Echinides crétacés du Madagascar. Bull. Soc. Géol. de France, 3. Ser. 24. 1896. p. 323.

ECHINOIDEA. IL. 8c

In the last named paper by Lambert he evidently does not lay so much stress on these two
different types of plastron since he places the typical meridosternous A/enuthiaster in his family
Aleropide which otherwise comprises forms with the plastron «plus ou moins developpé, et dans le
premier cas toujours amphisterne»; he considers the genus MJenuthiaster as «une forme profondément
modifiée, avec tendance au retour vers un groupement homogéne des assules interambulacraires et
dont la disposition exceptionellement méridosterne n’a qu'une importance relative, incapable de pré-
valoir contre ensemble des autres caractéres, notamment le groupement des plaques apicales» (p. 323).
This leads us to consider more closely the systematic value of the characters afforded by the apical
system in the JMZeridosternt. I may then recall the differences occurring among the Pourtalesiide with
regard to the apical system: disconnected in the /owrtalcsia-species; compact in Lchinocrepis cuncata,
disconnected in Ach. setigera; compact in Sternopatagus, disconnected in Sfpatagocystis. Even if it is
scarcely correct to admit species with compact and with disconnected apical systems into the same
genus (for which reason I have made Lchinocr. setigera the type of a new genus, see above p. 84),

nobody will doubt that all these genera are very nearly related, and are rightly referred to the same

family". — Even among specimens of the same species there may occur rather great differences in
the structure of the apical system —- see e.g. the two figures of apical systems of Uvechinus nare-

sianus given by Agassiz (Pan. Deep-Sea Ech. p. 156. Figs. 226—27). There can thus be no doubt that
the apical system is of comparatively little systematic importance among the J/eridosterni, and it
seems to me very irrational to place the meridosternous J/enuthiaster among the amphisternous
«Aéropide» on account mainly of its apical system, the more so as it differs, indeed, only very little
from the normal structure thereof in the Ananchylide. Likewise the fascioles are of comparatively
small systematic importance among the JMJeridosternt — I may recall e. g. the subanal fasciole of
Stercopneustes, the marginal fasciole of Calymne, and the fact that in Uvrech. narestanus some speci-
mens have a subanal fasciole, while other specimens show no trace thereof.

It seems then beyond doubt that the meridosternous and the amphisternous structure of the
plastron is the primary systematic character among the higher Spatangoids. On grouping the genera
accordingly, we get in the group of the Weridosterni: the Ananchythide (or Echinocorythide), Urechinide
and Pourtalesiide, in the group of the Amphisternz: the rest of the Sfatangide. (I cannot here enter
on a discussion of the families of the Amphisternz). It is at once seen that these two main groups
are very natural, another sign of the correctness of using the structure of the sternum as the principal
character.

Without giving detailed diagnoses of the families of J/erzdosternt I may point out what to me
appear their main characters. In the Urechinide the second plate of all the interambulacra is a single
plate — probably not the result of the fusion of the plates a.2 and b.2, as thought by Loven,
but of a «meridosternous» arrangement of these plates in all the interambulacra, as thought by Lam-

bert2. The Urechinide thus represent a separate branch from the Avxanchytide, characterized by the

' Agassiz, it is true, doubts that Sverzofatagus is really a Pourtalesiid, but — in my opinion without sufficient
reason. Gregory (in Ray Lankester’s Treatise on Zoology. III. p. 321) places Echinocrepis and Spatagocystts in the family
Spatangide, even in two different sections, whereas Powrtalesia is kept as a distinct family. This classification is, indeed, so
absurd, that it needs no refutation.

2 In the great Monograph of Echinocorys (Mém. Mus. dhist. nat. de Belgique. II. 1903) p. 26 Lambert says: «en
réalité, je ne crois pas que le systeme périsomatique interradial des Echinides comporte une seule plaque double, pas meme

86 ECHINOIDEA. IL.

single plate 2 of the anterior interambulacra and by the simple pores. The figure of Offaster corculum
given by Lovén (On Pourtalesia. p. 92) is highly interesting as showing the beginning of such an
arrangement in the antero-lateral interambulacra; this form does undoubtedly show us the way from
the Ananchytide to the Urechinide — also the pores are very small and the ambulacral plates high
in this form, characters pointing towards the Uvechimide, but the pores are, however, double as in
the true Ananchytide.

The Pourlalesiide evidently form another separate branch from the Axanchytide, with which
they agree in having the second plate in the antero-lateral interambulacra paired. The main char-
acter of this family otherwise is the oral invagination of the anterior ambulacrum with the struc-
tural features of the actinal part of the test resulting therefrom, and the vertical position of the
peristome. The homoiopodous condition of the tube-feet can no longer be regarded as a family char-
acter, since Sternopatagus is shown to have penicillate actinal tube-feet like the Urechinide and An-
anchytide; but the simple or even quite rudimentary pores afford another good distinguishing char-
acter between this family and the Avanchytide, in which the pores are double. Whether we have to
seek the transitional forms between the Axanchytide and the Pourtaleside in such forms as /nz/felaster,
Hagenowta or Stegaster 1 dare not have any definite opinion, being too little acquainted with these
genera; but as far as I can see it is rather probable. In any case the Urechinids cannot be regarded
as ancestral forms of the Pourtalesize; the single plate 2 in the antero-lateral interambulacra is alone
a sufficient proof that there cannot be a direct genetic connection between these two families.

The genus Calymne cannot be referred to either of the two families named, differing from the
Urechinide in having the plate 2 of the anterior interambulacra paired, from the Powrtalesude in
having no oral invagination and from the Avxanchytide in having simple pores. It must then, evidently,
form a separate family, Calymnide. Whether the marginal fasciole is a family-character it is impos-
sible to decide, as long as this form is the only one known of the family; but judging from the other
families it will scarcely be more than a generic character.

The genus Pilematechinus would be exceedingly interesting, in case the structure of its plastron
were really as figured and described by Agassiz in the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini»; it would then
be a living representative of the forms in which the plastron is still in the primitive condition, known
in the Collyritide and Cassidulide, and from which the meridosternous and amphisternous plastron
are later developments. Pilematechinus would then be the most primitive of the recent Sfatangoidea.
It can, however, scarcely be doubted that //ematechinus is a true meridosternous form, belonging to
the Urechinide, the plate interpreted by Agassiz as the labrum being in fact two plates, a short
labrum followed by a larger sternum. — A feature of great interest in Prlematechinus is that it has

comparatively well developed auricles; this evidently points towards the Gnathostomata, viz.the Holec-

le labrum». This would involve the incorrectness of all the cases of Heteronomy in the Interambulacrum 1 in the Spatangide,
pointed out by Lovén. Though I cannot follow Loyén in all these instances, I think that in many of them Lovén’s inter-
pretation of the larger plates as being fused from two or three is quite correct. That the labrum is really a single plate I
most decidedly agree with Lambert, and I suppose that I am likewise in accordance with Lambert in rejecting his previous
view (Etudes morph. sur le plastron des Spatangides. p. 63, 72), that in the Spa/angide the labrum should be considered
comme une piéce complexe formée par la soudure intime de divers éléments empruntés aux deux séries des assules con-
stitutives de l'interradium impair», viz. composed of the two (theoretical) plates a,1 and b,1 and further of the plates a, 2
and b. 2, tbe great sternal plates being thus really a.3 and b. 3.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 87

typoidea, among which the ancestors of both Spatangoids, Cassidulids and Clypeastrids undoubtedly
must be sought for. The Holectypoidea again must be derived from the Yzademina (or perhaps from the
Echinothurids (.S¢reptosomata)), as must be concluded alone from their perforate and crenulate tubercles.

Gregory (Op. cit.) divides the AZelostomata into the two suborders Asternata (Echinoncide,
Nucleolitide and Cassidulide) and Sternata (Collyritide, Echinocorythide, Spatangide, Paleostomatide
and Pourtalesiide). To this must be objected — apart from the position of the /ourtaleside —
that the Collyritide are really asternous. Since the Collyritide evidently cannot be referred to his sub-
order Asfernata, their relation being decidedly with the Spatangoids, I think we must let them rank
as a distinct suborder besides the Amphisternata and Aleridosternata,; 1 propose to name this suborder
Protosternata.

In my view the ancestral history of the Irregular Echinoids may then shortly be comprised as
follows. The Holectypordea, which are derived from the Mzademina, develop into three separate main
groups: the Clypeastroidea, Cassiduloidea and Spatangoidea. In the former the masticatory apparatus
undergoes a further development, in the two latter groups it becomes lost. Leaving out of considera-
tion the Clypeastroidea and Cassiduloidea we may follow the third branch, the Sfatangoidea. From
the more primitive forms of this group, represented by the Codlyritide@, two separate main branches
have developed‘, each characterized by their peculiar structure of the plastron, in one meridosternous,
in the other amphisternous. The dZeridosternata develop through the Avanchytide, of which the genus
Stereopneustes is the only known living representative, into three separate branches, the Urechinide, the
Calymnide and the Pourtalesiide. The Amphisternata 1 cannot here follow in a more detailed manner,
having not yet had occasion to study them all very closely; but I think it beyond doubt that the
more primitive forms are those included by Lambert and Agassiz in the families Aévopide and
Paleopneustide, together with the Peleostomatide, the more specialised forms being such as Sfatan-
gus, Brissus ete.

To seek for transitional forms between the Pourtalesiee and the more primitive amphisternous
forms is, so far as I can see, rather absurd. The Pourtalesize are so far from being «embryonic Spa-
tangoids»? that they must be regarded as the most specialized branch of the whole group, in which
the development has been carried out to such extremes that it may be hard enough to see the
accordance with the general rules of the echinoid structure. In the «Challenger»-Echinoidea (p. 130)
Agassiz finds «the affinities developed in so many directions in the group of Pourtalesize (is) one of
its most interesting features», tracing its relationship «to the Brissina, and to such genera as //emi-
aster, Echinocardium, Lovenia and the like through Aérope, Aceste and Cronobrissus», further «to the
Spatangina proper through such genera as Paleotropus, Genicopatagus and Homolampas, and again
to the Galeritidee and Echinolampade through such genera as Urechinus and Cystechinus», besides
«the many-sided affinities ..... to the Ananchytide, Dysasteride, and such genera as Cardiaster, [o-
laster, Toxaster and the like». Also to the Clypeastroids the Pourtalesize are said to show affinities,

viz. <in the simple actinostome and in the structure of some of the pedicellarize» (Op. cit. p. 129. Note),

1 I do not mean to say that they have developed directly from the Cod/yri/idw; the real ancestor of the Merido-
sternata and Amphisternata must have had a simple, not disconnected apical system.
2 Rey. of Ech. p. 347. The expression is, strictly speaking, used only of /n/u/aster and the Ananchytida.

88 ECHINOIDEA. II.

and even to the Echinide and Echinometride they seem to show affinities, viz. through their «large
headed» (tridentate) pedicellarize (Op. cit. p. 132). — In the «Panamic Deep-Sea Ech.» p. 150 Professor
Agassiz finds it «interesting to trace the changes between Pourtalesia proper with its bottle-shaped
outline, deeply sunken actinal and anal grooves, its well developed anal proboscis, and such a type
as Plexechinus, in which the Pourtalesian features have almost disappeared, to pass into a more An-
anchytid type, represented by Urechinus and Cystechinus. In the further development the rudimentary
phyllodes and labium become specialized in Genicopatagus, Argopatagus and Homolampas. Next An-
anchytid petals like those of Paleopneustes, Linopneustes lead us gradually to the petaloid type of
the recent Spatangoids». — On p.173 it is stated for Argofatagus that the fact that «the second plates
of the posterior zone of the posterior lateral ambulacra almost separate the labium from the sternum
as in Plexechinus ..... is an indication of the affinities of the genus to the Pourtalesiz>».

Agassiz thus evidently seems to consider the Pourtalesize as the centre from which all the
other Irregular Echinoids have developed; that the group itself has developed from one of those
named does not seem to be the meaning of the famous Echinologist — the Pourtalesiz are evidently
regarded as «embryonic» forms, which have given rise to all the different groups, to which the affi-
nities are pointed out, since the «affinities» probably must mean real genetic relationship. I think I
need not here point out in a more detailed manner that the more prominent characters of the Pour-
talesize are highly specialized, not at all embryonic. But Professor Agassiz does not seem to take
into consideration that the different characters are not of the same value; structural characters of
the highest systematic importance and irrelevant, vague resemblances are regarded as equivalent
criteria of relationship. (Comp. my remarks on this theme in the Echinoidea of the Danish Siam-
Exped. p. 50.)

Also Uvrechinus naresianus is held by Agassiz («Blake»-Ech. p.52) to be a representative of
the oldest Spatangids, «leading us little by little to Spatangoid genera in which the ambulacra become
more or less petaloid, as in Homolampas, Paleopneustes and the like, till we get the modern type of
Spatangus proper, with well defined petaloid ambulacra and a highly developed subanal fasciole» ete.
It is evident that the quite rudimentary abactinal tube-feet and pores in Uvechinus is a highly speci-
alized feature, which may possibly give rise to further stages in which these tube-feet and pores com-
pletely disappear; but it is rather inconceivable how these rudimentary pores and tube-feet, which
doubtless represent a reduction from the more primitive condition, where the pores were double and
the tube-feet well developed, should again give rise to petaloid structures with large, double pores
and well developed tube-feet. Also the fascioles have doubtless developed separately in several groups
— in the same manner as the polyporous condition of the ambulacra among the Zchimina. — The
same objections may be made against regarding Calymne as holding «an intermediate position between
the Pourtalesiz proper and such genera as Paleopneustes and Palzeotropus», and against finding in
Cystechinus (Urechinus), Pourtalesia — and «the allied genera Paleotropus, Neolampas and the like
a proof of «the affinities of the Spatangoids with the Echinolampadze». («Chall.»-Ech. p. 148). — Upon
the whole I cannot join Professor Agassiz when expressing his joy of «how the structure of so many
of the Spatangoid forms is satisfactorily explained by the different genera of Pourtalesize collected by

the -Challenger» and how greatly the knowledge of the members of this family has helped us to

ECHINOIDEA. II. 89

understand the true relationship not only of many aberrant groups of Spatangoids, but also their
relationship to the Clypeastroids and Echinolampadee». («Chall.»-Kch. p. 148).

I give here a graphic representation of the mutual relationship of the Spatangoids, as I under-
stand it. It will be seen that my view of the A/erzdosternata is in rather close accordance with that
represented in the tabular view of the Aleridosterni given by Lambert.! I may notice expressly that
it is not meant as a genealogical tree of the genera. As for the families, I do not doubt that they

have really been derived from one another in the direction here indicated.

Plexechinus Pourtalesia Echinosigra Spatangidee 3
Cystechinus (?)? Spatagocystis Ceratophysa Paleeostomatidee
Pilematechinus Cystocrepis Helgocystis Paleeopneustidze
Urechinus Echinocrepis Aéropidee
Calymmnidee Sternopatagus
G
e Stereopneustes a
S \ sO"
> | eo
¢, res
% | ase >
@ \ ; yo oe
wy
; : X@
Ananchytidze SF
RS
&
Ny,
Mer: Collyritidee
‘ }
doste,
Nat
\z Cassiduloid
: | assiduloidea
Clypeastroidea =
= ies
= @
. = is;
i>}
it
o
Holectypoidea
}
Diademina

1 Etudes morph. sur le plastron des Spatangides. As for Lambert’s remark (Op. cit. p.g3) that the Pourtalesicae
must form a small separate family «reliée par Uvechinus aux vrais Ananchytide et rattachée aux Spatangide par Paleotropus
et Physaster», I must refer to the above remarks against seeking transitions between the Pourtalesice and the Amphisternata.
Lambert is here, evidently, in disaccord with the views otherwise expressed throughout that excellent paper.

2 This genus is quite insufficiently known and possibly does not really belong to this family. (Comp. aboye p. 46, 49).

3 Sensu latiori, comprising Spa/angrna, Brissina ete.

The Ingolf-Expedition, IV. 2 12

ECHINOIDEA. II.

Suborder Amphisternata.

Fam. Spatangide.

It may be expressly stated that by including here in the «family» Sfatangide all the genera
mentioned in the following, viz. Aéropsis, Hemiaster, Schizaster, Spatangus, Echinocardium and Lbris-
sopsis, besides some few others, as Aceste, Periaster which I have taken the opportunity to discuss, I
do not mean to maintain that all these genera do really belong to one and the same family. It is only
a provisional arrangement; so long as I have not studied more carefully all the recent genera of
Amphisternous Spatangoids, or at least so many of them as are available for me, I do not want to

give my view of their classification. I hope to be able to do so in Part II of the Siam-Kchinoidea.

Aéropsis nom. nov.

The name Aérofe by which Wyv. Thomson designated the curious Spatangoid described by
him in «The Atlantic» I. p. 381 was preoccupied and thus cannot be kept for the Spatangoid. It was
first used by Leach, though only as a Manuscript name, Aévope bidens, for a crab of the genus
Macrophthalmus VWatr. (Macr. parvimanus Vatr.).! Later on, in 1860, it was employed by Albers for a
pulmonate Gastropod of the Fam. //elicordea (Aérope caffra; South Africa)? It is thus beyond doubt
that the Spatangoid named Aévofe in 1877 must have another name. I therefore propose the name
Aéropsis, which recalls the old familiar name so much that this change of name can scarcely give

much trouble.

25. Aéropsis rostrata (Wyv. Thomson).
Pl. V. Figs. 8—t1o, 15, 20, 22. Pl. XV. Figs. 1—2, 5, 8, 13, 1I9—21, 29, 37, 40, 43, 52.

Synonym: Aérope rostrata Wyv. Thomson.

Literature: A. M. Norman: Crustacea, Tunicata, Polyzoa, Echinodermata etc. Biology of the
Valorous» Cruise 1875. Proc. Royal Soc. 25. 1876. p. 211. — Wyv. Thomson: The Atlantic. I. p. 381.
Fig.g9. — A. Agassiz: «Challenger»-Echinoidea. p. 192. Pl. XXXIII. Figs. 6—13, XXXIII. a. 8—12,
XXXIX. 23, XLI.7—8. (Non.: Pl. XXXIII. 1—5.) — Verrill: Results of the Explorations made by the
Steamer «Albatross» off the Northern Coast of U.S. in 1883. (426). p. 539.

In his description of this species Professor Agassiz points out that his specimens differ con-
siderably in outline, as is also very well seen in the figures given on Pl. XXXIII of the «Challenger>-
Hchinoidea. Nevertheless he does not regard them as different species, and in his recent work «The
Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» (p. 194) it is maintained that the differences in outline of the specimen(s)
figured on the Pl. XXXIII of the «Challenger»-Echinoidea are all «compatible with differences due to

' List of specimens of Crustacea in the British Museum. 1847. p. 37.
* Tryon: Structural and systematic Conchology. 1884. III. p. 18.

ECHINOIDEA. II. gI

age». This, indeed, seems highly improbable. The smaller specimen (20™") has its genital pores well
developed, and thus cannot be regarded as a quite immature specimen. But a change so enormous as
would be necessary to make the short form like the elongated during its growth from a size of 20"
to 43™" would be quite unparalleled among Echinoids — and that change should even take place
after the animal had become sexually ripe. Adding hereto that the smaller, short form is from the
Atlantic, whereas the large, elongated form proceeds from the Arafura Sea (Kee Islands, «Chall.»
St. 191); that the latter closely resembles the pacific species A. /u/va, and further that a specimen of
34"™™" length from the «Ingolf» agrees with the short form in the shape of the test, we may safely
conclude that the elongated form figured in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea is not A. rostrata; if it is
identical with A./zlva is not so certain, perhaps it will prove to be a new species. (Comp. below p. 94).

The specimens from the «Ingolf» agree very closely in the shape of the test with the figures
given by Wyv. Thomson and with the figures of the short specimen given in the «Challenger»-
Echinoidea; there can thus be no doubt of their identity with A. rostrata, except in case there should
turn out to be more than one species among the short forms. Also the locality agrees: the specimens
of the «Ingolf» were taken in the Davis Strait, the type-specimen of Wyv. Thomson between Cape
Cod and Cape Hatteras («Chall.» St. 45)2 The locality where it was taken by the « Valorous»-Expedition
(59° 10' Lat. N. 50° 25’ Long. W. 1750 fathoms), is also in the Davis Strait, and rather near the «Ingolf»
stations.

The largest of the specimens taken by the «Ingolf» is 34™™ long, 17" broad and 18™™ high.
Another specimen is 25™ long, 12™ broad and 13™™ high. (Pl. V. Figs. 8—1o, 15, 20, 22.) — Concerning
the shape of the test it is to be remarked that it is a little compressed in the posterior part, the
actinal plastron forming a slight keel. The front end is, as pointed out by Wyv. Thomson and
Agassiz, rather abruptly cut; but the anterior edge forms a narrow, almost vertical ridge whose
lower corners are rather prominent. Along the lower edge of this ridge the fasciole passes. The ante-
rior ambulacrum is somewhat deepened almost down to the vertical ridge; only the plates in this
deepened part carry large tube-feet. According to Agassiz («Chall.» p. 194) «the
posterior extremity turns upwards» (in the short form). In his figures that is not
seen very distinctly, to say the least, and in my specimens I do not see it either.
Perhaps this ought to have been said of the large specimen; in A. /ulva it is a

distinct feature, as shown by Agassiz in his «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini», Pl. 61. 3;

— on this occasion (p. 194) it is otherwise stated that «the posterior extremity of

A. rostrata slopes quite gradually to meet the rounded anal extremity». Fig. 15. Apical system
pes q g y J
: 5 ; x of Aéropsis rostrata.
The apical system is described as «compact, the madreporic body occu-

pying the greater part of the inner edges of the anterior genital plates and of the eight posterior
plates». This would give a composition of the apical system of no less than eleven plates, which is

evidently wrong, 9g plates, as is well known, being the usual number of plates in the apical system

t Duncan evidently also doubted the identity of the two forms, as appears from his remark: «It is very important
that separate descriptions of the specimens from Davis Straits and the remote Arafura Sea should be presented to science».
(Revision. p. 272).

2 «The Atlantic», loc. cit’ Agassiz does not mention this locality in his Report on the Echinoidea, only «Bay of
Biscay and Coast of Spain» besides the wrongly cited St. 191,

2 ECHINOIDEA. II.

of Spatangoids. In Aéropsis rostrata the number is even not larger than 7, the two genital plates of
each side being, generally, united into one (Fig. 15); in the smallest of the specimens in hand, 7°5™™ in
length, the two left genital plates are, however, separate. Duncan (Op. cit. p.272) suggests that «in
the beautiful drawing given in the «Challenger»-Report, pl. XX XIII. a, fig. 10, there is a possibility of
the existence of a fifth imperforate basal plate»; this figure, however, is too little detailed or exact
for founding a so remarkable conclusion upon, and no such plate exists in this species. — The madre-
poric plate occupies only the middle of the right (composed) genital plate; it is somewhat elevated.
Wyv. Thomson and Agassiz have found 4 genital openings; two of the specimens before me have
only two genital pores, a third specimen has three pores, none of them has four pores. The genital
papillze are well developed as in the type specimen. The genital pores have not yet been formed in a
specimen of 15™™ length, in a specimen of 17™™ length they have appeared; it may thus be concluded
that they appear at a size of ca. 16™™ length. — The labrum reaches to the middle of the 2. ambula-
cral plate, as is also seen in the figures in the «Chall.»-Ech.; in the smallest specimen (7'5"") it reaches
only to the end of the rst adjoining ambulacral plate on each side. In one of the specimens (that
figured as denuded) the anal area is almost quite naked, in the other specimens it is covered by plates
as described and figured by Agassiz. — It is to be emphasized, that in the general form of the test
the small specimens agree with the large ones — one proof more that the differences between the large
form figured in «Chall.»-Ech. Pl. XXXIII.1—5 and the short, typical form are not «compatible with
differences due to age».

The number of tube-feet in the odd anterior ambulacrum increases with age. The specimen
of 7°5™™ has only two large tube-feet (one pair), the largest specimen has 12 (6 on each side). The
size of the sucking disk is comparatively the same in both small and large specimens — not distinctly
an «embryonic feature». No large tube-feet are developed near the periproct. According to Agassiz
(«Chall.»-Ech. p. 193) there are only ten large tube-feet round the actinostome. I find all the 15 tube-
feet of the inner plates well developed and of the usual form; in the largest specimen those of the
second ambulacral plates likewise begin to develop into the usual form. No spicules are found in the
actinal tube-feet; in the large frontal tube-feet the spicules are very numerous, almost smooth, elongate
rods, not arranged in longitudinal series, but forming a close mail round the foot (Pl. XV. Fig. 5). The
extremely elongate rosette plates consist of a small flat, pointed inner part and a very long outer
part, the edges of which are bent inwards on the lower side so as to form an almost closed, narrow
tube at the inner end; towards the outer end the edges become less and less incurved, the point of
the plate being quite flat. The inner and outer parts of the plate are separated by a distinct widening,
somewhat thickened and with a bow on the lower side, evidently serving as a support of muscles
(Pl. XV. Figs. 19, 20). To be sure I have been unable to see these muscles with certainty, but as the term-
inal disk in the preserved specimens is often folded in different ways, it seems almost beyond doubt
that such muscles really occur.

The spines along the odd anterior ambulacrum are long and straight, not widened in the point;
those on the anterior part of the test, inside and outside the fasciole, as well as round the peristome,
are short, spear-shaped, a little curved in the point; those on the posterior end are simple, of medium

length. De Meijere («Siboga»-Ech. p. 195) mentions as a character of A. rostrata, distinguishing this

ECHINOIDEA. IL. 93
species from A. /z/va, that no «<spatelformige» spines occur inside the fasciole (evidently judging from
Agassiz’ statement in his description of the large form that «within the peripetalous fasciole the
spines are longer, not clubshaped»); this does not hold good, at least in the specimens before ie.
De Meijere further finds a difference in the structure of the spines of the two species, viz. that in
A. fulva the widened point of the spines is serrate along the edge, whereas it is smooth in A. rostrata
— founding on the figure (Pl. XLI.7 evidently) given by Agassiz. This character will not hold good
either; the widened part of the spine is (more or less) serrate at the edge also in A. rostrata. — The
small spines and clavule have an «ampulla»! at the point, as found by de Meijere in A. /ulva
(Pl. XV. Fig. 43). — The spheeridize are slender, generally rather elongate; in the anterior ambulacra
they continue up to the fasciole, in the posterior to the anal area.

Pedicellariz. Only rostrate and tridentate pedicellariz have been found. The rostrate pedi-
cellarize (Pl. XV. Figs. 1, 13) have almost straight, flat valves, with the point rounded, not widened,
faintly serrate; neck very short; the stalk may have a faint «milled» ring below. The head is ca. 075"
in length; the strong brownish adductor muscles between the valves make these pedicellarize rather
conspicuous. They may occur very numerously over the whole test, or very sparingly. The tridentate
pedicellariz (head up tor™™in length) have simple, leafshaped valves, which join in almost their whole
length. In large specimens the edges are bent somewhat inwardly in the lower part of the blade and
very irregularly serrate. The blade may be open down to the apophysis, or the edges may unite to
form a coverplate over the lower part; generally there is no meshwork in the blade, but in a speci-
men examined in the Museum of Yale College I found the larger tridentate pedicellarie with a rather
richly developed meshwork (PI. XV. Fig. 2). The basal part is rather narrow; the edges may be some-
what serrate. The neck is short, the stalk without a «milled» ring below. They occur in all sizes from
quite small to ca. 1™ length of head. (Pl. XV. Figs. 8, 21, 29, 52.) Quite small forms (Pl. XV. Fig. 37)
may perhaps better be termed triphyllous. According to a sketch of a living specimen made on board
the «Ingolf» the colour is light yellow, the fasciole alone being of a prominent brown colour. In some
specimens seen in the Museum of Yale College the frontal tube-feet were violet. —

This species was taken by the «Ingolf» at the following stations:

St. 36 (61° 50’ Lat. N. 56° 21’ Long. W. 1435 fathoms. 1°5 C. Bottom temp.) 3 specimens.
geet MODEL netimed: POLLO oir UIP RPESI( ni OL Se i eS te

The geographical distribution, as far as hitherto known, is the Northern Atlantic, at the Ame-
rican side, and the Davis Strait; the bathymetrical distribution is 1240--1750 fathoms. In the «Chal-
lenger»-Report the species is stated to occur also in the Bay of Biscay and at the Coast of Portugal,
as also in the Arafura Sea (Chall. St. 191. S00 fathoms). That the specimen from the latter locality is
wrongly referred to A. rostrata I have shown above. Regarding the locality «Bay of Biscay and Coast
of Portugal?» it may be remarked that in «Summary of Results» of the «Challenger»-Expedition I.
p.114 A. rostrata is named from St. 2, off the Mouth of the Tagus, 470 fathoms; but since the

specimens were without «distinctive» Station number, it seems not to be relied upon that the

« I name it thus, as it is evidently a structure of the same kind as the «ampulla» in the secondary spines of some

Cidarids, described by Hamann and Prouho.
2 Duncan (Revision. p. 270) from this expression concludes that one specimen was taken in the Bay of Biscay,
later on another off the coast of Portugal, which there is nothing else to support.

C ; ECHINOIDEA. II.
94

specimen really came from that locality. Further, since the type specimen of Wyv. Thomson was
taken at St. 45 (38° 34’ N. 72° 10’ W. 1240 fathoms)", and only two specimens are mentioned in the
«Challenger»-Report, one of which (St. 191) is no true A. rostrata, it seems not hazardous to suggest
that «Bay of Biscay and Coast of Portugal» was wrongly named among the localities of A. rostrata.
Both the localities named in the «Challenger»-Report, p.194, are thus wrong; on p. 220 the locality
Davis Strait is rightly named.

A few remarks must be made on the pacific species, Aévopses fulva (A. Ag.) The structure of
the test has been very elaborately worked out by Professor Agassiz (Pan. Deep-Sea Ech. p. 194—97,
Pl. 61,62), and the spines and pedicellarie have been described and figured by de Meijere («Siboga»-
Ech. p. 195. Taf. XXIII. Fig. 481—87). Having examined some specimens from «Albatross» St. 3361 and
3399 in the U.S. National Museum I am able to give a little additional information. In the shape
of the tridentate pedicellariz I do not find any distinct difference from A. rostrata; I have seen none
with meshwork in the blade. The rostrate pedicellarize (only one specimen found) differ distinctly from
those of A. rostrata (Pl. XV. Fig. 34); the blade is shorter and broader than in that species and some-
what serrate at the lower end. — In the elongate specimen from the «Challenger» St. 191 I find the
tridentate pedicellaria somewhat different (Pl. XV. Figs. 6, 12, 27). In the larger ones the edges in
the lower part of the blade are very irregular, somewhat thickened or thorny, and there may be a
rather well developed meshwork. The smaller ones have upon the whole shorter and_ broader
valves than is the case in A. fzlva and rostrata, and there is often some meshwork developed already
(PI. XV. Fig. 27, comp. with Fig. 29). These small differences, in addition to those pointed out by Pro-
fessor Agassiz (Pan. Deep-Sea Ech. p. 194), may perhaps tend to show that this specimen from the
Arafura Sea represents a third species, different from 4. /w/va, though certainly nearer related to that
species than to A. rostrata. Unfortunately the figures of pedicellariz given by Dr. de Meijere are so
little detailed that it cannot with any certainty be concluded from them whether his specimens agree
in regard to the pedicellarie with A. fdva or with the «Challenger»-specimen from the Arafura Sea:
This question about a third species of Aéropfszs must be left undecided for the present; but the main
thing here was to show that the elongated form from the Arafura Sea is not A. rostrata, and this, I
think, has been put beyond doubt.

Also on Aceste bellidifera a few remarks must be made here. (I have examined a specimen
from the «Challenger» St.8 in the British Museum, and another from the «Albatross» St.2117, which
Professor Rathbun most liberally lent me for examination). First as regards the name dAces/e, though
apparently so original, it is perhaps a little doubtful if it can be maintained, the name Aces/a having
been used already in 1855 by Adams for a bivalve molluse (Lima excavata). Still the ending of these
two names is really different so that I do not think it necessary to alter the name dces¢e. (It might,
otherwise, easily be done sufficiently e.g. by adding only an «s», so that the name would be easily
recognizable). — Regarding the structure of the test I have nothing to add to the careful analysis
given thereof by Lovén; especially the apical system is seen by Lovén’s Figure (Pourtalesia. Pl. XX.
237) to differ considerably from what is seen in the Fig. 7. Pl. XXXIII.a. of the «Challenger» Report.

The pedicellariz have partly been figured by Professor Agassiz, but not all sufficiently de-

t «The Atlantic», I. p. 381.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 95

tailed. I have found globiferous, rostrate, tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariee, whereas ophicephalous
ones were not met with. The globiferous pedicellariz have a large space in the blade continuing almost
down to the articular surface; evidently it includes a gland, as is the case in the globiferous pedi-
cellarize of the Cidarids. The terminal opening is small, transversely elongate, with one tooth on each
side; the basal part is rather wide, with rounded, smooth edges. (Pl. XV. Fig. 14). The Fig. 45, Pl. XLIV
of the «Chall.»-Ech. evidently represents a valve of this kind; that the figure is not sufficiently cor-
rect will be seen by a comparison with the figure given here. I have never seen them with the edge
of the basal part serrate. The rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XV. Fig. 32) have rather short and robust valves,
a little widened in the point, which is serrate in the usual way; the apophysis generally a little serrate.
They may, however, also have more elongate and slender valves, with the terminal part somewhat
larger. (Pl. XV. Fig. 15). The stalk has a distinct milled ring below. Very small pedicellarize (Pl. XV.
Fig. 36) which may perhaps also be termed rostrate are found in rather great numbers inside the
fasciole (on the lateral ambulacra) and in the fasciole itself, among the clavule. The tridentate pedi-
cellarize are very richly developed, being represented by no less than three distinct forms. The simplest
form has elongate, narrow, simply leafshaped valves, which join in their whole length. The edge is
finely serrate. In the specimen from the «Albatross» this form is more elongate and narrow; the edges
in the lower part are bent a little inwards and smooth (Pl. XV. Fig. 51). The second form of tridentate
pedicellarize (Pl. XV. Fig. 22) has the edge of the blade very coarsely dentate; the blade otherwise is
leafshaped. The third form (Pl. XV. Fig. 25) is rather like the more slender rostrate pedicellarice, the
blade being narrow with a widened point; but this widened part is not sharply set off from the narrow
part, bending gently inwards. The two latter forms have only been found in the specimen from the
«Albatross». The stalk of all three forms has the upper end thickened, the lower end provided with a
distinct «milled» ring. The neck may be well developed or quite short. — The triphyllous pedicellarice
are like very small and simple tridentate pedicellariz.

The spicules (Pl. XV. Fig. 41) are simple rods, a little spinous (generally only at the ends), not
so numerous as those of Aévopszs. The plates of the rosette are elongate and narrow, flat, the edges
not curved as in those of Aévopszs (Pl. XV. Figs. 10, 39). — The peculiar clubshaped spines found in
the anterior ambulacrum are «interesting as showing a possible transition from normal to more special-
ised spines, which may in part perform the functions of pedicellarize» («Chall»-Ech. p. 196). They are
certainly interesting, but that they have anything to do with the functions of pedicellarize there is
nothing at all to prove —it seems, indeed, very improbable that they can perform functions like those
performed by the pedicellariaze with their movable valves. It might seem more appropriate to compare
them with the sphzeridiz which are undoubtedly only specialised and transformed spines.

Professor Rathbun (332. p. 89) suggests the possibility of another species of this genus occur-
ring in the Atlantic, on account of a small specimen which «differs considerably from the larger speci-
mens», without giving, however, anything more detailed about these differences. Perhaps the existence
in the Atlantic of a species distinct from A. dedddifera would account for the differences between the
figures of the pedicellariz given by Agassiz and by me. In fact I am unable to find in the specimens
examined by me pedicellarize corresponding passably to the Figures 27 and 28, Pl. XLII, Fig. 25.
Pl. XLII and Fig. 46. Pl. XLIV of the «Chall.»-Ech. The fig. 28. Pl. XLII evidently represents the

96 ECHINOIDEA. II.

slender form of tridentate pedicellarize; but I have not seen them without neck, and also the shape is
rather different from that seen in the specimens examined by me. The Fig. 46. Pl. XLIV is said in
the explanation of plates to be a valve of both the forms figured in Fig. 27. Pl. 42 and Fig. 25. Pl. 43,
which seems impossible. It undoubtedly belongs to the first of these. — It might perhaps be doubted
whether the specimen(s?) from «Chall.»-St. 272, in the Pacific (between Hawaii and Paumotu), 2600
fathoms, are really identical with the Atlantic specimens. The above mentioned figures of pedicellarize
may perhaps have reference thereto; only some fragments are preserved in the British Museum, so
that the question cannot be solved from that material alone. In case the Pacific specimens prove to
be another species, the specimen from the «Siboga»-Expedition (de Meijere. Op. cit. p. 196) will cer-
tainly not be A. beliidifera either. (No specimens from St. 323 of the «Challenger» are found in the
3ritish Museum.) *

That Aéropszs and Aceste are closely related can scarcely be doubted. The globiferous pedicellariz
of Aceste (such will probably also turn out to exist in Aévofpszs) undoubtedly point towards Hemzaster,
with which genus Aévofsis and Aceste agree in several important characters: the existence of a peri-
petalous fasciole alone, the ethmophract apical system (in Aceste it is, however, ethmolytic, though the
madreporic pores do not pass beyond the posterior ocular plates (Lovén. Loc. cit.)), the structure of the
spines, and the prominent suckers of the odd ambulacrum. On the other hand the primitive condition
of the mouth and of the paired ambulacra show them to be of a more primitive type than //emzaséer.

The enormous development of the frontal tube-feet, is, according to Professor Agassiz, «an
eminently embryonic feature, it exists in the youngest stages of all the Spatangoids of which we
know the development». («Chall.<-Ech. p. 195). We know the postembryonal development of Echzno-
cardium flavescens (O. F. Miill.), Echinocardium cordatum (Penn.)*, Abatus cordatus (Verr.) (Lovén. On
Pourtalesia), Spatangus purpureus O. F. Miill.*, Brissopsis lyrifera (Forb.) (Agassiz. Revision of Ech.
Pl. XIX), Hemiaster expergitus Wovén* and Schizaster fragilis (Ditb. Kor.)*. (On those marked with
an * information will be found in this work.) But in Lchznocardium flavescens, cordatum, Spatangus
purpureus and Abatus cordatus at least these suckers can by no means be said to be very large and
prominent in the young specimens. On the contrary, it seems to be the rule that those forms which
have, when fullgrown, large suckers get them early developed, whereas those which have only small or
little prominent suckers when grown up have them small also in the young stages — as might, indeed,
be expected. It seems then more safe to conclude that the small suckers represent the more primitive
condition, the less specialized stage being, of course, prior to the more specialized. Thus, I think, the
large suckers of Aéropszs and Aceste show these genera to be a rather specialized branch from an
otherwise primitive type; this especially holds good for Aceste, whose test has got its very peculiar
form evidently on account of the extreme development of the odd ambulacrum and its tube-feet.

The affinities of Aéropsis and Aceste to the Schizasterids repeatedly pointed out by Professor
Agassiz seem very probable; also the globiferous pedicellariz are in accordance with this. On the

other hand I am unable to see the real affinity of these genera to the «Zvissina», likewise repeatedly

' In the Preliminary Report on the Echini collected, in 1902, among the Hawaiian Islands by U. S. Fish. Comm,
Steamer «Albatross» (Bull. Mus. Comp, Zool. I. Nr. 8. 1907) published after the above was written, Agassiz and Clark de-
scribe two new species of Aceste (p. 258 —59). This fact highly strengthens the doubt of the identity of the «Challenger»- and
Siboga»-specimens of Aces/e from:the Pacific with the /. bellidifera from the Atlantic.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 97

emphasized by Agassiz. It is mainly the large frontal tube-feet which are taken as a proof of this
affinity — «the striking resemblance of the young Arissopfs7s with its gigantic suckers in the odd
anterior ambulacrum (Rev. of Ech. Pl. XIX. 1—2) to the full-grown Aérofe, plainly shows the Brissoid
affinities of the genus» («Chall.»-Ech. p. 1g0); but also the shape of the test is, if I understand it rightly,
taken as a proof of this affinity («Chall.»-Ech. p. 196). Quite apart from the fact that it seems rather
exaggerated to term the frontal tube-feet of the young SLrissopsis «gigantic», this isolated feature, the
large frontal tube-feet, does not appear to me a sufficient proof of near relation between these other-
wise very different types; the subanal fasciole so characteristic of Arissopsis seems especially a proof
against the suggested affinity with Aévopszs and Aceste. Also the structure of the globiferous pedi-
cellariz is a proof against more close affinity of these forms, far more important than a_ possible
resemblance in the shape of the test of Aces/e when seen in end view.

If the view expressed above (p.84—85) of the primary classificatory importance of the structure
of the sternum be correct — of which I for my part am fully convinced —it naturally follows that the
affinities of Aéropsis and Aceste to Pourtalesia and other Ananchytid genera, likewise repeatedly emph-
asized by Professor Agassiz, are not real; they are merely superficial analogies. Aérops7s and Aceste
are rather primitive amphisternous forms, which cannot be more closely related to the higher meri-
dosternous genera, and neither can they be taken as «showing the passage of the Pouwr/alesia-group

to the Brissina among the Spatangoids» («Chall.»-Ech. p. rgo).

26. Hemiaster expergitus Lovén.
Pl. II. Figs. 1, 4, 18, 20. Pl. IV. Figs. 6—8, 1o—12. Pl. XV. Figs. 9, 16—18, 24, 26, 30—31, 35, 38, 44—45, 47—48, 50.
Synonyms: //emzaster zonatus A. Ag. |
— gtbbosus A. Ag. (? — see below, p. 102—5).
— Mentzt A. Ag. |
Literature: Lovén: Etudes sur les Echinoidées. p. 13. Pl. V. 46—47. XI. 93—94. XIII. 114—20.

species of Echinoidea. p. 243.

The specimens of //emzaster dredged by the «Ingolf», «Michael Sars» and «Thor» must un-
doubtedly be referred to the species described by Lovén, /7. expergitus. Professor Théel most kindly
sent me the type specimens of Lovén so that I have been able to make a direct comparison, and
the identity is thus established beyond doubt. The species was hitherto recorded, since Lovén, only
from the «Talisman» by Bernard, and it is thus a fact of no small interest that it now proves to
occur also in the northern Atlantic, and evidently not very rarely. The specimens before me are of
different sizes, from 5™™ to 37™™ in length; I have further taken a quite young specimen of only 3™™
length off Frederikssted, St. Cruz, ca. 500 fathoms, which evidently belongs to the same species. (Lovén
had only a pair of young specimens of ro—14™" length). We are thus able to follow the changes
which appear with age.

The shape of the test is seen from the figures representing the naked test and the test with
the spines (Pl. II. Figs. 1, 4, 18,20. Pl. IV. Figs. 6—8, ro—12). The outline is oval, a little broader in the
anterior half. The abactinal side is almost flat, sloping rather strongly from behind towards the front,

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 13

ECHINOIDEA. II.

98

the vertex being at the end of the posterior petals. The sides of the test are almost vertical, the
actinal side almost flat. The periproct is situated near the abactinal side, in a slight furrow. The
ambulacra are very little deepened. — The young specimens are somewhat more egg-shaped, but the
posterior end is high as in the larger specimens, the outline in profil being mainly the same; only
in the specimen of 3™" length the posterior end is yet rather sloping, the anal opening being very
near the apical system.

To give a detailed description of the structure of the test would be superfluous after the
elaborate analysis and figures given by Lovén, only a few additional remarks can be given on
account of the larger material at disposal. — In the younger specimens the peristome and mouth is

as yet quite embryonal, the labrum not prominent at all; in the specimen of 3™™ the peristome is

Fig. 16. Peristome and adjoining part of the Fig. 17. Apical system of a young Hemzaster
test of a young Hemiaster expergitus, 3™™ in expergitus, 3™™ in length. 25/1. The outline
length. 25/r. of the smaller ambulacral plates and of some
of the inner interambulacral plates not quite

sure.

quite pentagonal; the peristomial membrane is full of small somewhat concentrically arranged plates
(Fig. 16). In the larger specimens the labrum becomes by and by rather prominent, a little pointed,
with the edge a little thickened and reverted. Its posterior edge reaches, in the smaller specimens,
only to the middie of the adjoining ambulacral plates I.a.1 and V.b.1 (Comp. Lovén. Pl. V.46); in
somewhat larger specimens it reaches to the end of the first ambulacral plates, or a little farther on
the right side, as in LLovén’s Figure 114 (and his Pl. V. 47), and in the grown specimens it reaches
to the middle or even to the end of the second adjoining ambulacral plate on each side (PI. II. Fig. 4);
generally the ambulacral plates of V.b. are a little shorter than those of I.a, so that the right side
of the labrum appears to reach a little farther than the left, but it is really symmetric. In the larger
specimens the inner ambulacral plates are comparatively much smaller than in the young specimens,
and their outline likewise is different. But though it thus looks rather different in the young and
grown specimens, no character for eventually distinguishing two species is to be found herein; it is

a difference due only to age, all transitional stages being found in the corresponding intermediate sizes.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 99

It is a remarkable fact that in some of the small specimens only one tubefoot is developed in
the plates I.a.r and V.b.1; the posterior tubefoot in these plates must then develop later on. From
the specimen of 3™™ (Fig. 16) it appears that the first tubefoot to develop is the inner one of the
platesml atrial, UM. ber. .2. then follows that of the plates I.b. 1, IJ. b.1, III.axr..... and lastly
the outer tube-foot of the plates I.a.1, Ila.z, III. b.z..... It is also seen there that the latter
appears first in the plate HI.b.1. In one specimen I have found both tubefeet developed in the plate
I.a.1, only one in V.b.1. — Some of the plates in the outer series of the bivial ambulacra may want
pores fotally; this may hold good also for one or two of the plates of the inner series between the
proximal ones and those bearing the large subanal tubefeet (the 6th—oth plate).

The apical system of the youngest specimen (Fig. 17) is quite in accordance with that described
and figured in the best possible way by Lovén for the more advanced stages studied by him. It is
extremely important to learn, how it is in the fullgrown specimens, as Lovén holds its «ethmophract»
structure to be of very great systematic importance, a view not universally
accepted, the numerous transitional stages from an ethmophract to an ethmo-
lytic condition tigured by Gauthier! tending especially to show this feature
to be of no primary systematic importance. As shown in Fig. 18 the apical
system of the largest specimen is as ethmophract as that of the smallest speci-
mens, the madreporic plate does not separate the posterior genital plates.

There are four genital pores, with well developed, up to more than 3™" long,

genital papille. A few madreporic pores are found also in the left posterior

genital plate. The madreporic plate is often somewhat elevated. Fig. 18. Apical system of
Hemtaster expergitus,

The spines of the anterior end of the test are somewhat spearshaped, 37™™ in length.

with coarsely serrate edge, in side-view curved and quite sharp. (Pl. XV. Fig. 44). \

Those on the posterior end of the test are more spoonshaped, with smooth edge; the spines of the
sides of the test are intermediate in shape between these two forms. The spines of the actinal plastron
(Pl XV. Fig. 50) are much widened in the point?, the widened part being sometimes almost quite
hyaline, almost without any reticulate tissue in the middle; in others the reticulate tissue has a
greater extent, both kinds occurring together in the same specimen. It is worth noticing that in the
specimen of 3™ length these spines are already of the typical form. The spines within the fasciole are
more or less spoon-shaped; those along the anterior ambulacrum increase in length towards the apical
system, the uppermost being the longest, reaching even beyond the fasciole behind (not widened in
the point). The size of the tubercles is, of course, in accordance with this fact, as is seen in Lovén’s
Fig. 115. The small miliary spines are mainly of the same structure as the clavule. (Comp. Agassiz

t Recherches sur l'appareil apical dans quelques espéces d’Echinides appartenant au genre «Hemiaster». Assoc. Frane.
pour l’avancement des Sciences. 1886. It is especially to be remarked that in a single species, Hemias/er batnensts, Gauthier
finds all stages represented from a typical ethmophract apical system in the young specimens to an ethmolytic in the large
specimens. (Comp. also: Lambert. Note sur le développement de lEchinospatangus neocomiensis d’Orbigny. Bull. Soc. Yonne.
1889. p. 11. Note; De Loriol. Notes pour servir 4 l'étude des Echinodermes. VI. Rev. Suisse de Zool. V. 1897. p. 175;
A. Valette. Description de quelques Echinides nouveaux. Bull. Soc. Yonne. 1905. p. 44).

2 In the «Blake»-Echini p.67 Professor Agassiz says of these spines in the young //. Mentzz: «The outer sheath of
calcareous rods becomes solidified as thin lamella, forming in one case in the primary interambulacral spines of the anterior
part of the test on the abactinal side, above the ambitus, a spearlike head to the shaft of the radioles; ..... in the shorter
radioles of the actinal plastron the lamella all develop into this spoon-shaped extremity». — Only two of the lamella develop
in this manner, the rest of them disappear on the lower part of the head.

Pe

13

100 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Chall.»-Ech. p. 185, on //emiaster gibbosus), only somewhat longer and less widened in the point. The
widening is, especially in the clavule, unequally developed, being largest on the posterior side of
the spine.

The tube-feet of the anterior ambulacrum within the fasciole are large and prominent, with a
large disk, not lobed in the edge. The rosette-plates have been figured by Lovén (On Pourtalesia.
Pl. X. 92); they sometimes bifurcate in the outer part. The spicules are simple, more or less spinulose
rods (Pl. XV. Fig. 38), mostly very numerous in the abactinal tube-feet, less numerous in the actinal
ones; they are arranged in two longitudinal series. The 6—gth (roth) plates of the median series of
the bivial ambulacra bear large tube-feet like those at the mouth, corresponding to the large tube-
feet within the subanal fasciole of Lrzssopszs ete.

The pedicellarize were hitherto unknown; only Agassiz mentions from //. A/entzt «a few large,
stout-stemmed, globular pedicellariz, irregularly scattered over the abactinal surface of the test». (« Blake»-
Echini. p. 68). I find all the usual forms: globiferous, rostrate, tridentate, ophicephalous and triphyllous.
The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XV. Figs. 47—48), which occur both on the abactinal and the actinal
side, are rather conspicuous; the head is about o:5™™, the stalk ca. 1™™; no neck. The valves are much
curved. The blade is quite closed, tubeshaped, ending in a transverse-oval opening, whose outer edge
is generally provided with 6 teeth, the inner edge being generally smooth. The basal part is rather
wide, with smooth edges. In a specimen from the «Talisman», examined in the Paris Museum, I find
also the inner edge of the terminal opening provided with teeth and the edge of the basal part more
or less serrate (Pl. XV. Fig. 24). The stalk is simple without thickenings or free projecting rods. The
rostrate pedicellarie (Pl. XV. Figs. 9, 16,18) have rather straight valves, curved only at the outer end.
The blade is narrow, open, with a terminal widening, differing to some degree in extent; it is gene-
rally short, but may take as much as the outer half of the blade. The edge of the widened part is
finely serrate, the edge of the lower part smooth; in larger specimens there may be some cross-beams
between the edges in the lower part of the blade. The edge of the basal part is generally more or
less serrate. No neck; the head of the largest specimens seen of this kind was o5"".— The tridentate
pedicellari are of two kinds; the one (Pl. XV. Figs. 17, 30,45) is very small (head ca. o2™"), with a
well developed neck. The blade is simply leafshaped, a little narrowing below. The edge is smooth
in the lower part, serrate in the outer part, the serrations increasing in size towards the end of the
blade and generally directed outwards, which gives the valves a rather characteristic appearance. The
stalk is delicate, tubeshaped. The second form (Pl. XV. Fig. 26) is larger (head ca. o4™™), the valves
join in their outer half, the edge of this part being somewhat irregularly serrate. Only one specimen
of this kind was seen; perhaps transitional forms may be found. — The rostrate pedicellarize with a
large terminal widening may be rather like this second form of tridentate pedicellariz, and it may
not always be possible to determine whether such a pedicellaria is to be termed rostrate or tridentate

as, upon the whole, the distinction of these two kinds of pedicellariz is not very sharp. — The
ophicephalous pedicellarize (Pl. XV. Fig. 31) I have found only in the smaller specimens; they are small,
shortstalked, without a neck and with the upper end of the stalk cupshaped, as usually among the

Spatangoids. The blade is round, only faintly serrate in the edge; there is no prolongation from the

lowermost of the three ares. — The triphyllous pedicellarie have a somewhat elongate blade, rather

ECHINOIDEA. II. IO!

strongly serrate at the edge (Pl. XV. Fig. 35). The sphzeridize do not present prominent features; they
occur (in the larger specimens) also at the large tubefeet at the posterior end of the test.

It is an important fact that even in the smallest specimens there is no trace of a latero-anal
fasciole, so that it may be regarded as proved that this fasciole is never found in //eméaster —a very
characteristic difference from the young of the genus Ada/us. In the young Aédafus there is a large
fasciole enclosing both the apical system and the anal area; a transverse band then develops between

,

the apical and anal area, and the part of the original fasciole behind the transverse band thus
becomes the latero-anal fasciole, whereas the anterior part of the original fasciole in connection with
the transverse band forms the peripetalous fasciole. In /H/emdastery the anal area is never intrafasciolar.!
In the specimen of 3™™ the peripetalous fasciole is already distinct (Fig. 17), and at a comparatively
large distance from the anal area. It is very small and in the anterior petal only one tube-foot is
distinct — and by no means very large — and two more are about to appear. In specimens a little larger
the peripetalous fasciole is very prominent, broad, but still enclosing only a very small space (PI. 1V.
Fig. 10); upon the whole the fasciole is comparatively much broader in the smaller specimens. The
odd anterior ambulacrum develops early, thus at a size of 5—6™™ already 4—5 rather large tube-feet
are formed. The paired petals are not developed till later on. In a specimen of ro™™ length I find in
the antero-lateral petals 5 pairs of pores in each series, but of the postero-lateral petals no trace is
seen as yet. In a specimen 12™" in length I find 2 pairs of pores in each series in the postero-lateral
petals. The smallest specimen in which I have found the genital pores developed was 14™™ long.

This species was taken by the «Ingolf» at the following stations:

St. 24 (63° 06' Lat. N. 56° 00’ Long. W. 1199 fathoms 2°4C. Bottom temp.) 1 specimen.
— 39 (62°00° — 22°38 — 865 — 29 — —)2 —
— 40 (62°00 — a21°365 — 845 — 3°300=«O —)8 —
— 63 (62°40! — 19°05) — 800 — Zo — = )2 =
— 67 (61°30' — 22°30° 06 =6— 975 — 30 = —)2 —
— 68 (62°06 — - 22°30) — 843 — 340°°=— —)r =
RO ON O25 40g 2207, — 586 San ca hoe wae SONS Mee
Unfortunately several of the specimens were in a more or less broken condition. — The spe-

cies was further taken by the «Thor» at 62°57’ Lat. N. 19° 58’ Long. W. 975 M. (1903) and by «Michael
Sars», 61° 4o’ Lat. N. 3° 11’ Long. FE. 220 fathoms, 6°3 bottom temperature (Ad. Jensen. 1902). The latter
locality (the Shetland-Norway ridge) is rather surprising and may indicate the possibility of the species
occurring along Norway. (Comp. Zchinus Alexandrt).

The geographical distribution of this species is thus the Northern Atlantic, from the Davis

Strait to the Caribbean Sea and from South of Iceland to the Azores. It belongs to the warm

t This feature, combined with the ethmophract apical system, the 4 genital pores, the difference in the pedicellarice
(evidently the least important character) and the very great difference in the whole shape and appearance, proves beyond
doubt that Lovén was quite right in maintaining that the antarctic forms: Aédalus cavernosus etc. cannot be referred to the
genus Hemiaster, as done by Professor Agassiz. «An extraneous form like this, if suffered to remain in the otherwise homo-
geneous group of true Hemiasters, is sure to vitiate its integrity, and the mixed assemblage thus set up for a natural genus,
if taken on trust, cannot fail to mislead when the question is to trace out comparatively its former geological and actual
geographical distribution». (ovén. On Pourtalesia. p. 73). In his last work, «The Panamic Deep-Sea Echini», Agassiz
recognizes the correctness of Lovén’s views, while Déderlein (Echinoidea d. deutsch. Tiefsee-Exp.) still refers the antarctic
forms to Hemiaster, without entering upon the question, however. This question will be treated at more length in my Re-
ports on the Echinoidea of the German and Swedish South-Polar Expeditions).

102 ECHINOIDEA. I.
area. The bathymetrical distribution is from 220 (or 170, comp. below, //. A/entzz) to 1700 fathoms
(«Talisman»).

Besides the species //. expergitus four more recent species of the genus H/emzaster (excl. A batus)
have been described, viz. Hemiaster gibbosus A. Ag. zonatus A. Ag. both from the «Challenger»,
H. Mentzi A. Ag. from the «Blake», and // florigerus Studer, from the «Gazelle». (The Hemzaster
apicatus Woods is referred by Woods himself to the subgenus Rkznobrissus and therefore, being no
true Z/emiaster, does not concern us here). As for the first and third of these species it seems rather
probable that they will prove to be synonyms only of //. exfergitus.

In his description of Hemuiaster gibbosus («Chall.»-Ech. p. 184, Pl. XX. 5—16, 22) Agassiz does
not point out by which features this species is distinguished from // exfergitus, and a careful analysis
of his description and figures does not reveal any good distinguishing characters either. De Meijere
(«Siboga»-Ech. p. 182) has had some specimens of 7. gzbbosus, but he only remarks that he finds them
answering well to the description given by Agassiz. Through the kindness of Professor M. Weber
I have received one of these specimens, 20" in length; I have thus been able to compare the species
with equal-sized specimens of //. exfergitus, and finally I have examined the «Challenger»-specimens
in the British Museum. The comparison of //. gzbbosus and expergitus gives the following results.

The shape of the test is the same; to be sure I have seen no specimen of exfergitus of the form
shown in Fig. 6. Pl. XX of the «Challenger»-Echini, all the specimens being wider in front than behind,
or (the small ones) almost elliptic. But Agassiz himself states that the outline is variable, and the outline

ofthe specimen figured in Pl. XX. 5" is almost quite as in expergitus.

(Comp. PL IL. Fig. 1). Evidently the form of the test thus does not give

o | any distinguishing character. Agassiz points out that the plates of

the lateral posterior interambulacra are comparatively bare — but in
expergitus they may be quite as bare, and I am unable to find any

difference herein between the specimen of yvdbosws before me and

09 se equal-sized expergitus. — «The bivium is separated from the trivium by

0°
i. joo °

Fig. 19. Abactinal part of the left

two large intercalated interambulacral plates». I suppose, that by these
: are meant the two large plates within the fasciole between the anterior
posterior Interambulacrum (4), of =
Hemiaster gibbosus; comp. with and posterior petal seen in the Fig. 9. Pl. XX. The figure, however, must
Pl. XX. Fig.g of the «Challenger»-

REE © certainly be wrong. It would be a quite exceptional thing to find in
Echinoidea. D 5 g

this place two large, paired plates; I find these interambulacra in the
specimen before me of the usual structure (Fig. 19), the fasciole passes over the third and fourth plate,
quite as in expfergitus of the same size. It could not be made out with certainty, how this is in the
Challenger»-specimens, but I do not doubt in the slightest that they will show the usual structure.
(In the largest specimen of exfergitus the fasciole traverses the 5th—7th plate in these interambu-
lacra). The «intermiliary granulation», which Professor Agassiz figures (Pl. XX. Fig. 13), I am unable
to find either in the specimen of gibbosus or in expergitus of corresponding size. In the largest speci-
men of expergitus it is well developed, though not so close as in the figure quoted.

* In the explanation of Plates (p. 292) it is stated that Fig.5 and 6 represent the same specimen which is evidently
impossible and in contradiction to the text (p. 184).

ECHINOIDEA. II. 103

From the description given by Agassiz it is thus impossible to find how to distinguish //. gzbbosus
from exfergitus. A comparison of the figures seems to give a somewhat better result, the petals and the odd
ambulacrum showing some difference: In the specimen of gzbdosus figured by Agassiz in Pl. XX. 5 and
g (ca. 30°" in length) the posterior petals are only a little shorter than the anterior ones, and the number
of pores in both petals is almost the same. In the largest specimen of expergitus (37™") the posterior
petals are only half as long as the anterior ones and the number of pores in the posterior petals is
likewise only about half that in the anterior; further in exfergitus the inner ca.7 pairs of pores in the
median (anterior) row of the anterior petals are small, in ezbdosus, according to Fig. 9, they are all large
and conjugated. The number of plates in the odd ambulacrum within the fasciole is in yg7bbosus (ac-
cording to Fig.g) ca. 18, in expfergztus 29. — These differences look very good. If, however, we com-
pare the specimen of gzbdosus of 20™™ before me with equal-sized expergitus, these differences become
very slight. In both I find the anterior petals twice as long as the posterior and with the double
number of pairs of pores. In gzbdosus I find the 4 inner pairs in the median row of the anterior petals
small (in exfergitus about 7). In the odd anterior ambulacrum I find in yzbdosus 14—15 plates within
the fasciole, in expergztus 17—18. And in the specimens from the «Challenger» in the British Museum
the posterior petals are only about half as long as the anterior ones, and the inner 5—7 pores of the
inner series of the anterior petals are small, not conjugate. No specimen in the British Museum
corresponds to the Fig.9. Pl. XX of the «Challenger»-Echini. These differences thus become so slight
that they seem rather inappropriate for distinguishing two species thereby. But other distinguishing
characters do not seem to be found in the structure of the test. The fasciole is alike in shape, like-
wise the spines. To be sure the labrum, according to Agassiz’ Fig.6 would seem to give some differ-
ence: Its posterior end reaches on the right side the middle of plate 3 in the adjoining ambulacrum,
on the left side to the middle of plate 2. As, however, this figure gives in any case a quite wrong
representation of the plates in the left posterior ambulacrum (1), it probably cannot be relied upon for
the right side either, the more so as in the specimens in the British Museum the labrum reaches only
to the middle of the second ambulacral plates of the adjoining series. The specimen from the «Siboga»
likewise agrees exactly with equal-sized expergi/us in this respect. — The number of buccal plates
and the form of the peristome is the same in both of them. The tube-feet and spicules are alike. —
The globiferous pedicellariz (not seen in the «Siboga»-specimen) present a small difference (PI. XV.
Fig..46): the blade is more elongate, with four teeth around the terminal opening, and the basal part
is narrower than in expereitus. The rostrate pedicellarize do not present any reliable differences,
whereas the large tridentate pedicellarie (Pl. XV. Fig. 42) differ from those of exfergitus in having
the edge in the outer part, where the valves join, regularly serrate — but in view of only one speci-
men of this kind having been found in expergitus, it does not seem reasonable to lay any stress upon
this feature. Ophicephalous pedicellariz were not met with in any of the specimens of g7bdosws exam-
ined. There seems then not to be a single reliable difference of any reasonable importance by which
to distinguish e7bbosus from expergitus (— also in the structure of the globiferous pedicellariz there
is some variation in expergitus, as pointed out above, p. 100, so that they present no reliable difference
either —). If specimens of both «species» were put together, I think it would be impossible to separate

them rightly again. Accordingly I must regard //. gébbosus as a synonym only of //. expergitus, but

104 ECHINOIDEA. II.

since one is known only from the Northern Atlantic, the other only from the Malay Archipelago and
Japan, it may be well to keep the Pacific form as a Var. g7bosus, for the present, though it seems
to be distinguished almost alone by the character of its geographical distribution.

The other species from the »Challenger>, Hemzaster zonatus, is so very imperfectly described
that it is impossible to found upon that description any definite opinion of its claim to form a separate
species. The figures, to be sure, show it clad in a close and uniform coat of spines; but also in
H. expergitus the coat of spines may be rather close — and in the description of A. Mente («Blake»-
Echini. p. 66) the tuberculation of //. zonatus is stated to be more distant, as it is in 7 expergitus.
It is thus, evidently, no very reliable character. The large fasciole and the deep anal groove do not
seem very reliable characters either, as it may be almost exactly similar in exfergitus, so that it does
not seem very improbable, when Agassiz thinks the differences from exfergitus may be due only to
age. On examining the type-specimens in the British Museum, I get the following result. The specimen
from St. 8, off Gomera, Canaries, is undoubtedly //. eaxpergitus, with which species it also agrees
exactly in the pedicellariz; but the specimen from St. 126 (off Rio Janeiro, 750 fms.) is undoubtedly
something quite different. Unfortunately the specimen is completely crushed, only the apical and the
actinal regions being tolerably preserved. As regards the structure of the test, it may be pointed out that
the labrum does not reach the second adjoining ambulacral plates. There are only two genital openings
and the apical system is not ethmophract as in //emzaster; the madreporic plate extends backwards
and separates the posterior ocular plates, but is not prolonged into the posterior interambulacrum.
The peripetalous fasciole is more Schzzaster-like, not round as in the figured specimen, and it is not
so broad as in that figure; any trace of a latero-anal fasciole cannot be seen — but that is no definite
proof of its non-existence, on account of the poor condition of the specimen. For the rest the specimen
is abnormal, the right anterior petal lacking; the left side is normal, showing the posterior petal only
one third the length of the anterior petal. The spines are simply widened towards the point, not of
the elegant shape of those of Hlemzaster. The globiferous pedicellarize are very different from those of
H. expergitus; the valves (Pl. XV. Figs. 3,7) enclose a large (probably glandular) space, which opens
with a small pore at the base of the single, compressed tooth, which terminates the long and slender,
curved blade —a structure exactly similar to that found in Schzzaster fragilis a.o. (comp. below, p. 110).
The tridentate pedicellarie are like those of exfergztus, but only the small form was found; the
rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XV. Fig. 11) differ somewhat from those of exfergitus, as seen by a comparison
of the figures. That the spicules of the tube-feet are few in numbers can scarcely mean anything as
a distinguishing character, since there is considerable variation in this respect in eapergitus.

Quite recently Professor Déderlein (Echinoidea d. deutsch. Tiefsee-Exp. p. 247) has referred
with some doubt a specimen from the Rockall-Bank to Hemiaster zonatus, and probably he is quite
right herein, judging from his figures and description of the pedicellarize. The globiferous pedicellarize
are seen to agree with those figured here from the type specimen; the single difference, a swelling on
the stalk, which I have not found in the type specimen, can scarcely be of any importance. More
different are the rostrate pedicellariz — but as in expfergitus these pedicellariz differ rather much in
form, the difference herein can scarcely necessitate a separation. Unfortunately also Professor Déder-

lein’s specimen was quite crushed, so that we must still remain ignorant of the structure and form

ECHINOIDEA. II. 105

of the test of this species. But it seems beyond doubt that in the «Challenger» Report two separate
forms were included under «//emzaster zonatus»: one (St. 8), evidently the figured one, a true //emiaster
and even the same as //. expergitus, the other (St. 126) probably a Schzzaster, which will certainly
prove to be a new species. The name //emzaster zonatus ought then certainly to be dropped as a

,
synonym of //. expergitus.

FHlemtaster Mentzt A. Ag. has unfortunately not been figured by Professor Agassiz, and from
the description («Blake»-Echini. p. 66) it is quite impossible to see by which characters it is disting-
uished from //7. expergitus, the only feature not agreeing very well with the latter species being the
«narrow, comparatively elongate space included within the peripetalous fasciole». — From the U. S.
National Museum I have received for examination a large specimen of //, AZenfzz; it is certainly
identical with /7. exfergitus. Of course, I cannot state with certainty that it is the true 77, Menéz7, I
have seen; but I have no reason to doubt the identification. Until the contrary is proved I must
then regard //. Mentzt as a synonym only of //. exfergitus. — From //. gibbosus it is stated to differ
in having a larger number of buccal plates, a feature which I do not find to hold good by comparing
the specimen of e7ddosus from the «Siboga» with the specimen of 7/7. AZentzz or with expergitus.

Hlemiaster florigerus Studer differs from exfergitus in several respects, judging from the de-
scription and figures given by Studer (Echinoidea d. Gazelle. (386) p. 882. Taf. II. 3). The test is
broadest in the middle, not in the anterior end as in exfergifus, and the height of the posterior end
is evidently smaller than in the latter species! According to the description the anterior petals are
the shorter, but this is in contradiction to the figures 3a and 3c. The apical system, according to
the Fig. 3d, is ethmolytic, a very important character, so important, indeed, that it must certainly
exclude the species from the genus //emiaster. (Dr. Meissner kindly informs me that Studer’s
description of the apical system is correct). The two anterior genital pores are
distinctly smaller than the posterior: in exfergitus they are of equal size. The
relation of the labrum to the adjoining ambulacra cannot be seen from the figures;
but Dr. Meissner informs me that the labrum ends off the first ambulacral plate.

(Fig. 20). By a short examination of the type-specimen during a visit to the Berlin-

Museum I found two sorts of pedicellarice, viz. tridentate and rostrate. Theformer
Fig. 20. Labrum and

(Pl. XV. Fig. 23) are essentially like the large form of tridentate pedicellariz in adjacent ambulacral

plate of /emtaster

yf y “om 5 a od oe er, y FAT Py >
expergitus, but only o-2™™", The rostrate pedicellariz differ only very little from the er ane ge (eee

form with the small end-part of expergitus. The spicules of the frontal tube-feet sketch by Dr. M.
(Pl. XV. Fig. 28) are more numerous, larger and more thorny than those of exfer- poarig ys
gitus. They are arranged in two close series; on one side those of both series have their ends inter-
mingled, on the other side they leave a bare space between them — just as has been described and
figured for Dorocidaris papillata (Part I. p. 33. Pl. VII. Fig. 1).— That 7/7 forigerus is a distinct species
is beyond doubt, but it is very doubtful if it can remain in the genus //emzaster, on account of its
ethmolytic apical system. However, as long as the species is so unsufficiently known it will scarcely
be possible to determine with certainty to which genus it ought to be referred.

1 Studer gives the following measurements: Length 24mm, Breadth 21mm, Height 13™™. In //. exfergitus of a corre-
sponding size the measurements are: Length 20mm, Breadth 20mm, Height 165mm,

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 14

106 ECHINOIDEA. IT.

Though no more recent species of emzaster have been described (— except the A datus-species
wrongly referred to this genus —) there is reason to discuss one more species in this connection, viz.
the Periaster tenuis A. Ag. described and figured in the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» p. 209, Pl. 103,
figs. 5—7, 104, 105, figs. 1—3. At the first glance on the figures, especially on Pl. 104, one is struck by
the close resemblance of this species to a /Yemiaster, and a study of the details of the structure of
the test can only strengthen the first impression. Above all the ethmophract apical system, so closely
like that of A/emiaster bufo, as pointed out by Agassiz, but also the total want of a latero-anal
fasciole, tend to show that it is really a MWemzaster. Further the elongate labrum, reaching to the
middle of the second ambulacral plates of the adjoining series, the condition of the petals and the
shape of the test, recall very much //. exfergitus. Also the pedicellariz point decidedly towards
Hemiaster, as 1 can state having examined a specimen («Albatross» St. 3398) in the U. S. National
Museum. The globiferous pedicellariz resemble those of /7, exfergitus, though more coarse (Pl. XV.
Fig. 33), the terminal opening is rather wide and surrounded by teeth as in eaxpergitus; they are, un-
fortunately, all somewhat broken in the only specimen found. The blade is a rather wide tube, with a
comparatively narrow (glandular) space continuing down into the basal part. The stalk is thick and
compact, but without distinct thickening or projections. The tridentate pedicellarize are of two kinds
of different size; the small form (Pl. XV. Fig. 49) is very like that of expergztus, only the skin is much
thicker, especially the neck is very conspicuous; the large form (head ca. 0-7™™) differs from that of
expergitus in the outer part of the blade being more rounded (Pl. XV. Fig. 4). Specimens of this kind
of tridentate pedicellarie not larger than the small form may be found, which shows that they are,
indeed, two separate forms of pedicellarice. Rostrate and ophicephalous pedicellariz were not found;
the triphyllous pedicellarie do not differ from those of exfergitus. Spicules as in expergitus.

From what has here been pointed out I think it evident that this species really belongs to
the genus //emiaster, the absence of a latero-anal fasciole especially being a character non-conformable
with referring it to the genus Perzaster. Through the prominent labrum and narrow plastron, as well
as through the pedicellarie and the general shape of the test (especially the outline in profil — comp.
PL. Il. Fig.20 with Pl. 104. Fig. 3 of the «Pan. Deep-Sea Ech.») Hemzaster tenuis (A. Ag.), as its name
must be, is easily distinguished from its nearest relation, //. expergitus (incl. gzbbosus).

It may be appropriate to give in this connection some remarks on Perzaster limicola, the only
other recent species hitherto referred to the genus Perzaster* — The tubercles along the anterior am-
bulacrum increase in size towards the apical system, the largest tubercle and longest spine being that
nearest the apical system, as is also the case in //emiaster expergitus. The apical system (which is not
represented in a sufficiently detailed manner in the otherwise beautiful Figure 6. Pl. XXVI of the

Blake»-Echini) is said in the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» p.211 to be //emiaster-like, though it has
only two genital pores. In the specimens in hand the apical system is not very //emzaster-like; it is
ethmolytic, the madreporite separating also the posterior ocular plates (Fig.21). This is evidently also
the case in the figure quoted of the «Blake»-Echini, though the sutures are not distinct. This species
is thus not in accordance with the diagnosis of the genus Periaster given by Pomel (Classif. meé-

"In A. Agassiz and H. Lym. Clark: Preliminary Report on the Echini collected, in 1902, among the Hawaiian
Islands (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. L. 1907), a new species of Pertaster, P. maximus, is described (p. 259).

ECHINOIDEA. II. 107

thodique. p 41), who limits the genus to include only the species in which the posterior ocular plates
are not separated by the madreporite. Considering, however, what has been made known by Gauthier
about the apical system in some species of //emiaster (Op. cit.), I would not feel inclined to separate
the P. dimicola from the genus Periaster on this account. (Comp. also De Loriol. Notes pour servir
a l’étude des Echinodermes. VI. p.175 and Lambert. Note sur le déve-
loppement de lEKchinospatagus neocomiensis. p. 11. Note). The labrum
reaches the beginning of the second adjoining ambulacral plates. The
actinal plates of the posterior ambulacra are rather elongate; the first of
the 5 large subanal tube-feet is found on the 5th ambulacral plate. The
frontal tube-feet have a well developed disk, with numerous elongated,
narrow rosette-plates; the edge of the disk is not lobed. The spicules are

irregular, slightly branched rods. Long genital papillae occur. Globiferous

tridentate, rostrate and triphyllous pedicellarie have been found. The
2 . " Fig. 21. Apical system of Periaster
globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XIV. Figs. 6,9) have a rather large (glandular) Vivesealaate
space within the blade, continuing almost to the articular surface; the
terminal opening has two teeth on either side. The stalk has a thickening above and below, but no
free, projecting rods. — Only one small rostrate pedicellaria was found, which does not show any
peculiar feature. The tridentate pedicellarize occur in two, not very distinct forms: one (PI. XIV.
Fig. 35) with the blade somewhat widened in about the outer third part, where the valves join, the
edge of this widened part being finely serrate, that of the lower part smooth; the other (PI. XIV.
Figs. 28, 44,47) with the blade very elongated, slender, narrowing evenly towards the basal part, the
edge being serrate in its whole length. In larger specimens (up to 2™™ length of head) the serrations
are coarse and irregular; there is a little meshwork in the bottom of the blade in these larger ones.
In the largest specimen seen the valves are very unequal in length (Pl. XIV. Fig. 47). This is probably
an abnormal case. The neck is well developed, the stalk has only a slight indication of a ring below.
The triphyllous pedicellariz are of the usual form.

The information given here is based on a specimen from the U.S. Nat. Museum, which Pro-
fessor Rathbun has kindly sent me («Albatross» St. 2401. — Gulf of Mexico. 142 fathoms). It agrees
closely with the description and figures of P. démicola given by Agassiz in the Report of the «Blake»-
Echinoidea (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. V. 1878. p. 193. Pl. HI), except in having no distinct anal fasciole.
On the other hand I have seen in the British Museum (3) specimens of «Pertaster limicola» from the
station («Blake» St. 49) from which the species was first described; but these specimens differ so con-
siderably in regard to the structure of the pedicellaria from what is made known above, that it
seemed to me certain that it must be another species, viz. the Brzssopszs alta Mrtsn. described below;
the pedicellariz of this latter species exactly agree with the present form. A renewed examination
of these specimens in the British Museum has proved this conclusion from the structure of the pedi-
cellarie to be quite true: they are very typical rzssopszs, with the subanal fasciole very well devel-
oped, quite agreeing in form and structure with the 47. alfa described below.

In the «Panamic Deep-Sea Echini» p. 210 Professor Agassiz says: «There must have been
some mistake in the identification of the Schizasterid collected by the «Challenger» (Pl. XXXYV. b.

14*

108 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Figs. 1—4) as Periaster limicola». 1 quite agree with the eminent author herein, and having examined
the specimens in the British Museum I am able to add some more differences to those now found by
Professor Agassiz between the «Challenger» specimens and the true P. démicola. The labrum ends
off the first adjoining ambulacral plates. There are four large subanal tube-feet. One specimen has
two genital pores, the other has four, the two anterior being quite small. The latero-anal fasciole has
quite disappeared in one specimen, in the other there are distinct traces of it. The frontal tube-feet have
a well developed disk, strongly lobate in the edge, the rosette-plates reaching only the beginning of the
lobes. The spicules are very numerous, rather much branched, otherwise like those of “mzcola. The
globiferous pedicellarize are of the Schizasterid type, with a very large space within the blade (Pl. XIV.
Figs. 1, 4); there is one tooth on either side of the terminal opening. The stalk has a limb above, where
the muscles from the head are fastened, and a small ring below. The tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XIV.
Fig. 21) are rather similar to those of P. démicola, viz. the slender form. The long and slender valves
join only at the point; the edge is in the lower part very coarsely and irregularly serrate; there is
a little meshwork, sometimes rather coarse, in the blade. Rostrate pedicellariz have not been found;
the ophicephalous pedicellariz (PI. XIV. Figs. 5, 36) are of the usual Spatangoid type, and there is a
prolongation from the lowermost of the arcs. The stalk is not distinctly cupshaped above. The tri-
phyllous pedicellariz do not present peculiar features.

The differences pointed out by Professor Agassiz and here, together with the geographical
distribution: one a deep-sea form from the Gulf of Mexico, the other a littoral form from the Arafura
Sea, leave no doubt that this is another species; if it be a new species is not so certain. It is very
like the Schizaster Jwkesti Gray both in the characters of the test and of the pedicellariz, and even
the locality is the same; indeed, I think it almost beyond doubt that it is really identical with that
species. — (In «Revision of Echini» Schizaster Jukesti is made a synonym of Sch. ventricosus (lacu-
nosus 1,.); this is, however, certainly not correct; the verification thereof will be given in Part II of
the Siam-Echinoidea). Whether Schzzaster Jukes’ ought really be reckoned to the genus Periaster, as
is done, in fact, by Agassiz in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea, is not easy to determine, these genera
being upon the whole very closely related. Perhaps the globiferous pedicellariza may indicate the
correctness of referring Sch. /wkesii to Periaster; in any case they differ considerably from those of
Schizaster lacunosus a. 0. (comp. below). But upon the whole I do not venture to enter in a more
detailed manner on a discussion of the rather difficult question of the genus Perzaster, my knowledge

of the fossil forms being too insufficient.

27. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis (Diib. Kor.).
Pl. I. Figs.6—7. Pl. XIII. Pl. XIV. Figs. 3, 7, 11, 13—16, 18, 20, 24—25, 31, 37, 39; 43, 46, 50—51.
Synonyms: GLrissus fragilis Dib. Kor.
Tripylus fragilis Sars.

Principal literature: Diiben & Koren: Skandinaviens Echinodermer. 1844. p. 280. Tab. X. 47—
49. — Gray: Catalogue Rec. Echinida. 1855. p.61. — Liitken: Bidrag til Kundskab om Echiniderne.
p. 175 (107). Sars: Norges Echinodermer. p.96. — Agassiz: Rev. of Echini. p. 157, 363. Pl. XXI. 3,
XXVI. 42, — «Challenger»-Echinoidea. p. 201, «Blake»-Ech. p. 74. Pl. XXVIII. 8—14. — Lovén: Etudes

ECHINOIDEA. II. 109

sur les Ech. Pl. XII. 102, XXXI. — On Pourtalesia. Pl. X. 100. Bell: Catalogue Brit. Ech. p. 164. —

Hoyle: Revised List Brit. Ech. p. 422. — Koehler: Note prélim. sur les Echinides, Ophiures et Cri-
noidées rec. en 1898—99, «Princesse Alice». Bull. Soc. Zool. de Fr. 1901. p.g9g. — Grieg: Nordlige Norges
Echinodermer. p. 32. — Déderlein: Echinoiden d. deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. p. 253. Taf. L. Fig. 2.

— Fauna Arctica. Seeigel. p. 385.

For other less important literary references see «Rev. of Ech.» and Bell’s Catalogue.

This species is very well described by Diitben and Koren and later on by Agassiz, so that
very little remiains to be added as regards the structure of the test. —

The shape of the test is rather variable; sometimes it is more rounded, sometimes more elongated;
not seldom it is unequally developed, the right side projecting beyond the left in front, though somewhat
less than is generally the case in Spatangus purpureus. — In «Revision of Ech.» Pl. XXI.3 is figured
a specimen in which the left side projects beyond the right. There can, however, scarcely be any
doubt that this figure (photograph) has been reproduced in inverted position; this is especially shown

by the genital pores: in this figure there are two genital pores on the right side, whereas they are

really found on the left side, as stated by Agassiz himself, «Rev. of Ech.» p. 263 —: «three genital
openings, right anterior obliterated». — (A similar inverted reproduction is found in the «Hassler»-

Echinoidea, Pl. I. 4, Macospatangus gracilis, and, probably, Pl. 1V.6,8, «/Zemiaster» Philippit). — The
height of the test likewise is rather variable, especially the abactinal keel formed by the posterior
interambulacrum may differ very much, being sometimes quite indistinct, sometimes very prominent.

The length of the posterior petals is generally scarcely one third of that of the anterior ones;
in a specimen from Bergen, however, they are more than half as long as the anterior ones, and the
apical system in this specimen is subcentral, whereas the apical system is otherwise near the posterior
end. (This specimen is figured in Pl. I. Fig. 7, the Fig.6 showing a normal specimen of the same size
for comparison). In the same specimen the posterior part of the labrum is longer than usual, reaching
to the 2. ambulacral plate on one side, to the posterior edge of the 1. ambulacral plate on the other
side, whereas it normally ends off the middle of the 1. ambulacral plate. Also the plastron is broader
than usual. Upon the whole this specimen differs very considerably from the typical form and
would undoubtedly have been made the type of a distinct species, had it come from a more distant,
less well known locality; but, as the Norwegian specimens otherwise do not show these characters,
such a single specimen can certainly only be regarded as an abnormal, probably atavistic case. But it
might well be worth looking out for similar specimens — as, of course, the existence of another species
of Schizaster in these regions, cannot be declared impossible. — Evidently the specimen of which
Grieg (Op. cit.) gives some measurements has some resemblance to the above mentioned, though the
posterior petals are not so long as here.

According to the statements of Agassiz («Blake»-Ech. p. 74) there is «considerable variation in
the distinctness of the lateral fasciole as it passes under the anal system. In some cases it stops sud-
denly near the level of the anal system; in others it can be faintly traced as an indistinct, irregular
anal fasciole; in others the anal fasciole is most clearly marked. These differences do not depend on
size, but specimens from one locality are usually similarly affected». Under the description of Schzzaster

orbignyanus («Blake»-Ech. p. 76) Agassiz further says: «It is interesting to note that in the specimens

Ilo ECHINOIDEA. II.

of .S. fragilis dredged off our eastern coast, the anal fasciole disappears first, leaving only a part of the
lateral fasciole extending from the peripetalous fasciole towards the anal system». On all the numerous
specimens of .S. fragilis, I have examined, I have found the anal fasciole distinct, whereas the lateral
fasciole is more or less rudimentary in a few (3) specimens from St. 32. In two of these specimens the
lateral fasciole is quite wanting on the one side, only partly distinct, not reaching the peripetalous
fasciole, on the other side; on the third specimen it is wanting on both sides, only the anal part
remaining distinct. But specimens without the anal part of the fasciole I have never seen; my
experiences thus are not in accordance with those of Agassiz. Evidently the specimens without the
anal part of the fasciole deserve to be reexamined; it is not impossible that they will prove to belong
to another species. (Comp. //emztaster zonatus, p. 105).

The pedicellarie of Sch. fragilis were until recently almost quite unknown. Agassiz (Revision
of Ech. Pl. XXVI. Fig. 42) figures a valve of a pedicellaria, which he finds (p. 666) «resembling the
gemmiform type of the Echinidee» (in the explanation of plates called «stout-headed pedicellaria»); it
is the rostrate form. The tridentate pedicellarize were seen by Koehler (Op. cit), who ‘only states
that they are of the usual form. Lastly, however, Professor Déderlein (Op. cit.) has given very im-
portant information on all the pedicellariz (except the ophicephalous) of this species and of most of
the other recent species of Schizaster. My own observations, which were made about two years before
Professor Déderlein’s work was published, agree almost completely with his. Having, however, several
additional remarks to make, I may give my original description almost unaltered; likewise I give most
of the figures of pedicellarize made at that time. The figures given by Doéderlein are, of course,
quite correct, being photographs; but several important details are not seen, so that my figures will
probably not be found superfluous.

The globiferous pedicellarize (Pl. XIV. Figs. 14, 16, 24,51) are rather conspicuous. The valves are
enclosed by a thick, evidently glandular coat of skin, which continues down over the upper part of
the stalk, covering the great muscles which go from the valves to a thickening of the stalk, a little
above the middle. Also at the lower end of the stalk there is a generally less distinct thickening for
the fastening of the basal muscle. The stalk is rather thick and compact; the head rests directly upon
the rounded upper end of the stalk. The valves are very characteristic (Pl. XIV. Figs. 14,16). As in
the globiferous pedicellarize of the Cidarids there is a large space in the interior of the valves, pro-
bably enclosing a poison gland, passing far down into the basal part, almost to the articular surface.
The opening of this space is at the point of the valve at the base of the single rather large and
compressed endtooth; the opening may be at its right or left side indifferently, that side with the
opening being somewhat hollowed. Very seldom abnormal globiferous pedicellarize occur, whose valves
end in two diverging teeth between which the opening lies (Pl. XIV. Fig. 24); sometimes pedicellarize
are found in which one of the valves ends in two teeth, the others in the usual way. Generally these
pedicellariz are strongly pigmented, often almost black, and, where they occur in greater numbers,
very conspicuous. They may be very numerous especially on the anal area, on the abactinal side in
the posterior interambulacrum and along the petals; on the actinal side they are very seldom found.
I have found them in specimens of only ca. 4™™ length. They differ rather much in size, the thick

part (head and upper part of the stalk) reaching about 1™™ length.

ECHNIOIDEA. II. III

The rostrate pedicellarize (Pl. XIV. Figs. 11, 15, 43) have the valves very little widened in the
point; they generally end in 6 small teeth; sometimes they are even narrowed in the point ending
with only 4 small teeth. Not seldom they are 4-valved (Pl. XIV. Fig. 43). This kind of pedicellarize is
especially developed round the mouth and in the anterior ambulacrum; also on the anal area they
often occur, but generally only small ones. Upon the whole these pedicellarize are smaller and much
less conspicuous than the globiferous ones; the length of the head up to ca.o5™. The neck is short,
especially in the larger ones; the stalk is thick and compact.

The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIV. Figs. 3, 7, 18, 20, 25, 37, 46, 50) are uncommonly richly devel-
oped, the valves varying from simply leafshaped to almost tubular, but all intermediate forms occur,
so that separate forms of them cannot be distinguished. As the more typical form I must regard
those with large leafshaped valves, narrowed in the lower part, widened towards the point, where
usually some coarse serrations are found; the edge of the lower, narrowed part may be almost smooth,
with only a few large teeth or more closely serrate. There may be a more or less developed meshwork
in the bottom of the blade. (This form is represented in Figs. 18, 46,50. Pl. XIV and in Déderlein’s
Fig. 2.b,f£ Pl. 1). Another form has the narrow lower part of the blade more distinctly set off from
the outer, widened part, and the point of the blade more or less distinctly bent inwards (PI. XIV.
Fig. 25). Quite small specimens may be simply leafshaped (Pl. XIV. Fig. 20, and Déderlein’s Fig. 2. ¢),
or more or less recalling the rostrate pedicellarize (Pl. XIV. Figs. 3,7) and perhaps they ought really
to be reckoned to that type; this, however, cannot be decided and is of no importance. — Large tri-
dentate pedicellariz with almost tubular blade (Pl. XIV. Fig. 37) I have found only in a large specimen
from the Faroe Islands — perhaps it is an abnormal form. The large tridentate pedicellariz are found
almost exclusively on the actinal side, round the peristome and along the ambulacra. They have a
well developed neck; the stalk is rather compact, with a more or less distinct «milled» ring below.

Ophicephalous pedicellarize (Pl. XIV. Fig. 39) I have found only on quite young specimens of
3—6™" length. They are of the usual Spatangoid type, without neck. The blade is broadly triangular,
continuing almost down to the articular surface, the apophysis being short and broad. The triphyllous
pedicellarize (Pl. XIV. Fig. 31) are of the usual form, with finely serrate edge.

The sphzeridie continue, as is usually the case, along the posterior ambulacra to the anal
area; they do not present features of specific value, and are almost spherical, smooth or grooved.
— The spicules (Pl. XIV. Fig. 13.a.b) are irregular, spinous rods; in the large tube-feet of the anterior
ambulacrum they are more complicated, their protuberances being larger and partly uniting so as to
form fenestrate plates. ovén (Pourtalesia. Pl. X. Fig. roo) figures the rosette-plates as reaching only
halfway out in the lobes; I find them generally reaching almost to the point of the lobes.

In the «Blake»-Echini (p. 74) Professor Ag!assiz describes young specimens of Sch. fragilis of
6 and ro™™ length. The «<Ingolf»-Expedition has taken (especially at Station 28) several small specimens,
the youngest of which are only 2™ in length. I am thus able to give a rather full account of the
development of this species from a size of 2™ upwards, a development which proves of no small
interest. (Pl. XIII).

In specimens of 2™ length (Pl. XIII. Figs. 2,4) the anal system is almost in the middle of the

abactinal side; it is, in fact endocyclic, closely joining the two large anterior genital plates, while the

II2 ECHINOIDEA. II.

posterior ambulacra end off the posterior edge of the anal area. The posterior genital plates are not
developed; the ocular plates as well as the abactinal plates of the paired ambulacra are rather indis-
tinct, but the course of the ambulacra is sufficiently distinct. The same, from a phylogenetic point of
view, highly interesting construction of the apical area has been described and figured for A dates
cavernosus by L,ovén (On Pourtalesia. p. 20—22, Pl. XIV) and by Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini.
p. 211—13. Pl.gg). The plates of the anterior ambulacrum are comparatively large and elongate, with
single pores, and only two tube-feet in each series of plates have as yet appeared within the fasciole.
They are rather large as shown in Fig. 3. Pl. XIII, but can by no means be said to be of very promi-
nent size. Especially interesting is the fasciole, which consists only of a broad band encircling both
apical and anal system, as is also the case in Adatus cavernosus of a corresponding size. The actinal
system is quite embryonal, round (Pl. XIII. Fig. 4), the labrum not at all prominent. The sternum is
typically amphisternous,' though the plate 5.a.2 is longer than b. 2. The test is almost oval in circum-
ference, with a very slight sinuation at the front, but the frontal ambulacrum is not deepened. The
shape of the test is rather flat, not at all globular, as is maintained by Professor Agassiz («Blake»-
Kchini. p. 78) to be the case in young Schizasters.

In the course of the further development the following changes take place. The postero-lateral
ambulacra and the two series of plates of the odd posterior interambulacrum grow forwards along
each side of the anal system, which is by and by pushed backwards, and a pair of interambulacral
plates develop between the two large genital plates and the anal system (PI. XIII. Fig. 1). The fasciole
now presents a very important change: from the primary fasciole has developed a transverse branch,
passing over the postero-lateral interambulacra and between the apical and anal system. This trans-
verse band, together with the anterior part of the primary fasciole develops into the peripetalous
fasciole, whereas the part of the primary fasciole posterior to the transverse band becomes the latero-
anal fasciole. — This stage is found at a size of 3™™ length (Pl. XIII. Fig. 1). — Plates are now con-
tinually developing in the odd posterior interambulacrum, the new ones appearing at the posterior
end of the two large genital plates. Thereby the anal area is pushed more and more backwards, till
it comes on the posterior edge of the test and is at last not at all seen from above. These inter-
ambulacral plates between the anal area and the apical system form the prominent abactinal keel;
the shape of the test is thereby very much altered, as seen by a comparison of the Figs. 9 and 7,
Pl. XIII, representing side views of the test in specimens of 3 and 4:5™" length. The latero-anal fasciole,
of course, is gradually pushed more backwards, as it must retain its original relation to the anal
area, viz. passing just behind it. In specimens of ca. 6™ length its anal part cannot be seen from
above any longer.

We may now follow the development of the abactinal ambulacra. The odd anterior ambulacrum,
which is at first not much broader than the paired lateral ambulacra, soon enlarges considerably, the
plates becoming much broader and comparatively lower. The sinuation in the front edge becomes
gradually deeper, and at the same time the ambulacrum deepens, forming a groove, bordered by the

adjoining antero-lateral interambulacra. At about 4™™ length the pores become double, the outer pore

' Agassiz (loc. cit.) says of the quite similar sternum in the young Adalus cavernosus that it is «almost a true me-

ridosternum». As I have pointed out above (p. 84), it is not at all meridosternous but typically amphisternous.

ECHINOIDEA. II. II3

constantly being larger than the inner one in each pair. The number of plates increases considerably;
whereas at 2™ length only 2—3 pairs of plates are developed between the fasciole and the ocular
plate, there are 17 pairs in a specimen of 11™" length. The fasciole here keeps its original position,
close to the anterior edge. — As said above it was very difficult to trace the exact number of plates
of the abactinal paired ambulacra in the smaller specimens. From a size of ca. 4™™ length there was
no difficulty in tracing the exact number and shape of these plates; while therefore the figures 1, 2
and 5. Pl. XIII do not claim to be quite exact in this respect, the figures of the later stages give
them correctly. In the younger stages no pores at all are developed in these plates; at a size of 4:-5™™
(Pl. XIII. Fig. 8) I find the pores very faintly indicated in the posterior series of the antero-lateral am-
bulacra. In specimens of 5°5™™ and 65™" they are distinctly developed in both series of these ambu-
lacra (Pl. XIII. Figs. ro, 12). At a size of 7°5™™ I find the pores of the posterior series of plates double,
while those of the anterior series are still simple — a very interesting stage, which is kept for life
by the genus Agasszzia. In specimens of 9™™ the pores are double in both series, though the pores as
well as the plates of the posterior series are still considerably larger. The antero-lateral ambulacra
have thus attained the petaloid condition, and their further development consists only in the enlarging
of the plates and pores and the gradual deepening (already at ca. 6™ the deepening is rather dis-
tinctly seen), besides, of course, the adding of new plates at their upper end. — The development of
the posterior petals begins somewhat later, on account of the original position of the transverse fasc-
iole close behind the apical system. In a specimen of 5:5™™ (Pl. XIII. Fig. 10) I find the first plates to
have appeared within the fasciole; in a specimen of 66™" a single pore has already appeared, and in
the next stage (PI. XIII. Fig. 13), 7°5"™, three pairs of plates have developed between the fasciole and
the ocular plates, each with a single pore. In a specimen of 9™™ length (Pl. XIII. Fig.14) four pairs
of plates have developed; they are already a little widened and deepened, and the pores are double,
the petaloid condition thus being reached. In the plates between the transverse and the latero-anal
fasciole no pores are seen, but each has a rather large tubercle.

In the apical system also important changes take place. In the youngest specimens only two
large genital plates are present, viz. the two anterior ones, the right one with a single madreporic
pore. All the ocular plates are developed, though only that of the anterior ambulacrum is quite distinct.
It is an important fact that the ocular plates of the posterior paired ambulacra are separated from
the first beginning, at first by the anal area and later on by the two anterior genital plates; the apical
system thus is ethmolytic from the beginning, not passing through an ethmophract stage, as might
perhaps be expected from a phylogenetic point of view. — The same is shown by Lovén (On Pour-
talesia. Pl. XVII) to be the case in Echinocardium flavescens, whereas the young stages examined by
Lovén (and myself) of Spatangus purpureus and Brissopsis lyrifera are not young enough for proving
the non-existence of an earlier ethmophract stage in these species. — The posterior genital plates
cannot be discerned with full certainty, till the specimens have reached a length of ca. 7™™ (Pl. XIII.
Fig. 13). The genital pores appear at a size of g—11™™. The madreporic pores begin to increase in
number in specimens of ca. 6", but still at a size of 1o—r1™™, when the genital pores are already
developed, the madreporic plate has not begun to develop into that large size, which it obtains in

grown up specimens.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV, 2. 15

114 ECHINOIDEA. I.

On the actinal side the only more important change occurs in the actinostome, the labrum
widening at the anterior end until it has taken the place of the posterior half of the actinostome and at
last covers the mouth-opening. Other changes occurring on the actinal side are mainly due to simple
enlargement of the plates.

The identification of these young specimens of Sch. fragilis is beyond doubt, both on account
of all intermediate stages being found, and on account of the pedicellarice; it is especially to be noticed
that globiferous pedicellarize are developed already in the youngest specimens and of the same form
as in the grown specimens, but no other species of Echinoids of the Northern Atlantic, as far as I
know, has that type of pedicellarie — except «Hemiaster zonatus», which cannot be taken into con-
sideration here, as it has (as far as known) no latero-anal fasciole. Now, on the other hand, these
young specimens closely agree with the genus .Sfatagodesma A. Ag. (Panamic Deep-Sea Echini.
p. 198—202. Pl. 106—7), founded by Professor Agassiz upon some young specimens, about 5™ in
length. A comparison of the figures given here with those of Spatagodesma Diomede seems to leave
no doubt that the latter is only the young of some Schzzaster-species from the Southern Atlantic!, or
perhaps of a species of the genus Aédatws, whose development is quite similar to that of Schzzaster
fragilis? The pedicellarie might probably have given a definite answer to the question of the genus
to which Sfatagodesma Diomede really belongs, but, unfortunately Professor Agassiz does not give
any information thereof. Be that as it may; the genus Spatagodesma must certainly be withdrawn as
a synonym of one of these genera. Professor Agassiz thinks Sfatagodesma most nearly related to
Agassizia; this need not be further discussed, in view of the fact that SAa/agodesma is really only the
young of some other well known genus, whether Schzizaster or Abatus — but, of course, I will not
deny that the structure of the young may be of importance for judging of the relation of these genera.

In the description of Spatagodesma Professor Agassiz points out that «there is a central apical
plate, composed of the four ankylosed genitals»; but the left anterior ocular plate is, nevertheless, not in
direct contact with this ankylosed plate, it is separated therefrom «by the intercalation of a row of lateral
interambulacral plates». This intercalation of interambulacral plates in the apical system is something
quite new in the Amphisternous Spatangoids, and probably Professor Agassiz has been lead to this
interpretation by his supposition of a close relation to Agasszzia, in which genus all the genital plates
are really ankylosed together. A comparison of the figure 2. Pl. 106 (Pan. Deep-Sea Ech.) with the
figures given here of the apical system of the young Sch. fragilis seems to me to leave no doubt that
the so-called intercalated interambulacral plates are really the two posterior genital plates, the large
central apical plate being not the ankylosed genital plates, but the single right anterior genital plate
and madreporite.

The young stages of Sch. fragilis here described are especially important for the interpretation
of the lateral fasciole. Professor Agassiz («Chall».-Ech. p. 200) takes the fact, that the latero-anal
fasciole of Schizaster japonicus is sometimes interrupted on the sides of the test, as a proof «evidently

showing that the lateral fasciole is an extension of the anal fasciole». The development of the fascioles in

' It was taken off the Atlantic coast of Patagonia, not off San Francisco, as stated in «Bronn» p. 1406.
2 The development of Ada/us cavernosus will be treated in my Report on the Echinoidea of the Swedish South-
Polar Expedition.

ECHINOIDEA. II. II5

Sch. fragilis, and even more the quite similar development of the fascioles in A datus cavernosus, where
both lateral and anal fasciole generally disappear with age, shows that the latero-anal fasciole is part
of the primary fasciole.

Sch. fragilis was taken by the «Ingolf»-Expedition at the following stations:

St. 25 (63° 20’ Lat. N. 54° 25’ Long. W. 582 fathoms 3°3C. Bottom ene 5 specimens.

SO eee 303 — 38 — — ) 10 -
— 28 (65°14 — 55°42) — 420, — 3°5 == — ) Numerous specimens.
ape) Oe Omaee cOOnSe Bi) | BIS == BQ) zh) 35 ae ss
ee Ol CON CMa 555 Se 1) 3024) 36; 0 = ES =
SEAN OG6 OSM ieee eg 4O uy = OOF "== 4°97 = == 4) 71 =
— 81 (61°44, — 27°00! — 485 — 6°r — —) 2 —
— 85 (63°21 — 25° 2%" — 1700 — — — ) I —
OO) OAC AS eee Tumse 20am = | 310) 9 == 8 Ay hs = ae! =
tO (05 20k 27 39 ASO =i) 2 on

The species was further taken in the Davis Strait by Wandel 1889 (63° 56' Lat. N. 53° 12’
Long. W. 130 fathoms. I specimen). Several specimens were taken at the Faroe Islands (150—190
fathoms) by the author in 1899 and by Ad. S. Jensen («Michael Sars». 1902).

The bathymetrical distribution of this species is ca. 35—700 fathoms. In the «Challenger»-
Echinoidea, p. 221 it is stated to have been taken (by the «Blake») at a depth of 955 fathoms at the
«Caribbean Islands». I cannot find in the Preliminary Report on the «Blake»-Echini (Bull. Mus. Comp.
Zool. VIII. 1880. Nr. 2. p. 84) or in Professor Rathbun’s works any locality to which this statement
might refer. — The geographical distribution of Sch. fragilis is: from the Northern Norway to the
Faroe Channel, South of Iceland, Davis Strait and along the American coast down to Florida. On the
European side of the Atlantic it is not known farther south than the Faroe Channel, and it is not
known from the Mediterranean or the Azores.

Sars (loc. cit.) and recently Grieg (loc. cit.) point out that Sch. fragilis is both more common
and reaches a considerably larger size at Northern Norway than farther South; thus it reaches a
size of go™™ length at the Northern Coasts, whereas the largest specimens known from Bergen are
only 55™™. (A specimen from the Faroe Islands has the same size, and a specimen from the American
Coast (S. of Long Island, 302 fathoms) is 60™™ in length). «It is therefore without doubt to be regarded
as an arctic form». It is certainly a remarkable fact that the largest specimens are from the most
northern locality, but nevertheless Sch. fragilis is evidently no arctic form. It is not found in the cold
area of the Norwegian Sea, occurring only where the bottom temperature is positive. It is one of
those rather numerous species, which belong to the Northern Atlantic, the warm area, but, on account
of the peculiar hydrography of the Norwegian Sea, proceed far North along the Norwegian Coast.

In the «Challenger»-Echinoidea (p. 201—2) Sch. fragilis is recorded from the Cape of Good
Hope, and recently Professor Bell‘ likewise records the species from South of Africa. Dédderlein
(Op. cit. p. 250) supposes that these specimens are really Sch. capensis Studer, of which species a careful
description and figures are given. Having myself examined the type specimen of the Sch. capensis in

t The Echinoderma found off the Coast of South Africa. I. Echinoidea. Marine Investigations in South Africa. III.
1904. p. 175.

15"

116 ECHINOIDEA. II.

the Berlin Museum and the specimens of the «Challenger» (St. 142), I must fully join Professor
Déderlein herein. As pointed out by Déderlein this species recalls Sch. philippi very much by
the shape of the test; there is no distinct abactinal crest formed by the posterior interambulacrum,
the test slopes gently towards the posterior end. The posterior petals are a little shorter than in
Philippii, but above all it is very easily distinguished from that species by its globiferous pedicellariz,
which are like those of /ragdlis with a single, large endtooth. On the other hand it differs from /ragzlis
in the broad shape of the tridentate pedicellarize, besides by the shape of the test. It may be expressly
stated that I have found the pedicellarize of both the type specimen of .S. cafenszs and of the «Chal-
lenger»-specimen quite like those figured by Doéderlein (Op.cit. Pl. L. Fig. 3). (Pl. XIV. Figs. 33, 48)
In the former I have further found a short and broad pedicellaria (Pl. XIV. Fig. 42) which may per-
haps represent the rostrate pedicellarize, which have otherwise not been found in this species. Ophice-
phalous pedicellariz have not been found either, and as in 4S. /ragzlis they will probably be found
only in quite small specimens.

I have further seen in the British Museum two specimens, labelled Sch. fragilis, from the Cape
of Good Hope Government, (No. 29), evidently the specimens mentioned by Professor Bell (Op. cit.),
who states on account of them that the species attains a much greater size here than in the Northern
waters. They are, however, certainly not Sch. fragilis, but belong to the canaliferus-group, and pro-
bably represent a new species. The shape of the test is as in Sch. canaliferus, and the pores of the
frontal ambulacrum are arranged in double series as in that species. I have found only rostrate pedi-
cellariae, both specimens being almost naked; they differ considerably from those of canaliferus, being
much less elongated and with quite smooth edges; the blade is curved in the usual way, a little
widened at the point, which is closely serrate (with ca. 16 teeth); the basal part is rather narrow
(Pl. XIV. Fig. 30, comp. with Pl. XIV. Fig. 26 which represents the corresponding form of pedicellarize
from Sch. canaliferus). The spicules (Pl. XIV. Fig. 38.a—c) likewise differ very considerably from those
of canaliferus; they are of two kinds: small, rounded, fenestrate plates, and numerous simple rods of
the usual form, arranged in 3—4 longitudinal rows, the fenestrate plates occurring mainly between
these series. The rosette-plates as in canaliferus. — By the double row of pores in the anterior ambu-
lacrum this form agrees with Sch. canaliferus and Savignyt alone. It is probably a new species; how-
ever, so long as S. Savignyt and the var. major Fourtau! are not sufficiently known as regards their
pedicellarie, I think it preferable not to establish it definitely as a new species — the more so, as it
is itself insufficiently known as regards the pedicellarie.

Of the rather numerous recent species of Schzzaster hitherto described three more belong to
the Atlantic (and the Mediterranean), viz. Sch. canaliferus (Lank.), orbignyanus A. Ag. and Edwardsi
Cotteau. I may take the occasion to give here some additional information of these species, which
may not prove superfluous. Schizaster canaliferus is so well known and well described, especially by
Agassiz and Koehler, that I have only very littie to add. It may be worth noticing that there are
found 5—6 large tubefeet on each side along the anal area, the first of these placed in the 5th ambu-
lacral plate; the subanal fasciole passes over the 12th ambulacral plate. (In S. fragilis there are 4—5

* R. Fourtau: Contribution a l'étude des Echinides yivant dans le Golfe de Suez. Bull, Inst. Egyptien. 4. Sér.
Vol. IV. 1904.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 117

large subanal tubefeet, the first on the 6th plate; the subanal fasciole passes over the 1o—11th ambu-
lacral plate). The pedicellaria have been described and partly figured by Koehler (Kch. des Cotes de
Provence) but not in a sufficiently detailed manner. Recently Professor Déderlein (Op. cit. p. 255) has
given a short, but correct description of the pedicellaricze. It is, however, not accompanied by figures,
so that I think it will not be found superfluous, when I give here a fuller description and figures of
these pedicellaria. — The globiferous pedicellarie have the terminal opening of the valves surrounded
by a circle of teeth, generally 3 on each side, and outside these one or two more on each side (Pl. XIV.
Figs. 8, 40). The blade is almost equally wide in its whole length; the gland-space in the interior
reaches down to the articular surface. The rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XIV. Fig. 26) have long and slender
valves; the edges are inrolled, sometimes with a few serrations. The point of the blade with ca. 6
teeth, not widened (in the larger ones). At the peristome rather large specimens of these pedicellarize may
occur (ca. 06" head), with the neck well developed; rostrate pedicellaria may occur more numerously
on the anal area, but these are upon the whole much smaller, with the point of the blade a little
widened (Pl. XIV. Fig. 19), and without distinctly developed neck. As a whole the rostrate pedicellarice
are rather poorly developed; the tridentate pedicellarize are the more prominent (Pl. XIV. Figs. 22, 41, 45).
In the simplest form the blade is leafshaped, the edges joining in their whole length, finely serrate.
This form is generally quite small. In larger specimens the valves become more and more apart, the
free edge being more or less regularly and coarsely serrate; the blade is here quite narrow and flat.
In the extreme form the valves join only with the very point. These large pedicellarie (head up to a
little more than 1™™) have generally four valves (as figured by Koehler. Op.cit. Pl. VII. 55), but
specimens with three or even with five valves may be found. (This is, I think, together with the
5-valved tridentate pedicellaria of Sa/enia hastigera figured by Déderlein (Op. cit. Pl. XLV (XXXVII)
3.1) the only case of 5-valved pedicellariz made known as yet; a case of 8-valved pedicellariz is de-
scribed sub Srzssopsis lyrifera). The triphyllous pedicellarie without prominent features, like small
tridentate ones. — The spicules (Pl. XIV. Fig. 34) are very small, irregular plates; they are found only
near the sucking disc and are arranged rather regularly in 4 longitudinal series. The rosette-plates of
the frontal pedicellarize well developed, reaching the point of the lobes.

This species is known only from the Mediterranean; only in Rathbun’s Catalogue (337)
p- 291 it is mentioned from the American Coast of the Atlantic (40° 02’ N. 70° 37’ W. ror fathoms). Pro-
fessor Rathbun has done me the very great service to send me this specimen for examination. I
find it to be S. orbignyanus.

Sch. orbignyanus is figured and described by Professor Agassiz in the «Blake»-Ech. p. 76.
Pl. XXVIII. Agassiz points out that there is a considerable difference between the specimens from
the Caribbean Sea and those from the northern coasts (off Marthas Vineyard), the peripetalous fasciole
being «much broader» in the northern form. His fig.5 probably represents the northern form (in any
case it agrees with the specimen from off Marthas Vineyard, which Professor Rathbun has sent me
for examination), and the Fig. 2 probably the southern form. Judging from these figures it is not
especially the breadth of the fasciole in which they differ, but more in its shape. In the northern form
it is narrow in the anterior part, from the point of the anterior petals; the median part of the fasciole

is thus much broader than its anterior part. In the southern form it is broadest in front, passing

118 ECHINOIDEA. II.

almost straight across the anterior ambulacrum from the end of the anterior lateral petals. The latter
are in the northern form about twice and a half as long as the posterior petals; in the southern form
(to judge from the fig.2 of Agassiz) they are 4 times as long. It might then well seem a little
doubtful whether they are really the same species — at least they deserve to be carefully examined and
compared. In case they prove to be different species, the southern form must keep the name ordzgmy-
anus, as the species was established on specimens from the Caribbean Sea (Prel. Rep. Blake Ech. p. 84).
Unfortunately I could not examine this question during my visit to America, as I could not get
access to the Collections of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, and specimens from the Caribbean
Sea were not in the Collections of the U. S. National Museum or the Museum of Yale College.

S. orbignyanus is upon the whole very like cavaliferus; a careful examination, however, shows
several more important differences. Agassiz notices as «a character which readily distinguishes the
specimens of the two species thus far compared» the closer tuberculation of ordzgnyanus. In the speci-
mens, I have examined, this is, however, a very little prominent feature; I can indeed scarcely find
any difference between the two species in this respect. — Perhaps the statement cited was founded
on the southern form. — In the structure of the test I find the most important difference between
the two species in the arrangement of the pores in the odd anterior ambulacrum. In canaliferus the
pores are arranged in two, close, irregular series, a feature which I find distinct already in a specimen
of 23" length; in ovézgnyanus these pores form only a single almost regular series (the examined speci-
mens ca. 50"); the ambulacral plates are thus much higher than in canaliferus. The form of the
labrum is a little different, the posterior part being comparatively longer and narrower in ordignyanus,
but as in canaliferus it does not reach the 2. ambulacral plate. The first of the large subanal tubefeet
is found on the 6th ambulacral plate (on the 5th in canaliferus); the subanal fasciole passes over the
11—12th plate, as in canaliferus. Agassiz points out that the latero-anal fasciole varies greatly in
distinctness; my observations are in accordance with this; of the two specimens before me one has it
very distinct, whereas in the other it is totally wanting.

The pedicellariz give very good specific characters. The globiferous pedicellarize (Pl. XIV.
Figs. 2, 32) are upon the whole very like those of canaliferus; the terminal opening of the valves is
surrounded only by a single circle of teeth, 4 (seldom 3) on each side. The second tooth from the
point may sometimes be placed a little more laterally from the others. The form of the valves is
otherwise like that of canaliferus. The stalk has at its lower end some free, upwards projecting rods
(Pl. XIV. Fig. 29); such are not found in canaliferus. The rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XIV. Figs. 23, 49) are
rather like those of canaliferus; the blade is long and slender, with smooth, somewhat inrolled edges,
which may be united by a few crossbeams in the lower part. The point of the blade is rather broad,
with about 10—16 rather strong teeth. They may reach a length of head of ca. 1™™. The neck is
very short. Small forms like those of canaliferus also occur. The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIV.
Figs. 12,17) have rather elongate, narrow leafshaped valves, which join in almost their whole length;
some of them have a few coarse serrations along the edge in the lower part (Pl. XIV. Fig. 17); (up to
ca. o'7™ length of head). Only these forms have been found, the tridentate pedicellariz thus far from
reaching the rich development of the tridentate pedicellariz in canaliferus; but it may be remarked

that I have seen only a few, not very perfectly preserved specimens — a better material will probably

ECHINOIDEA. II. 119
show that the tridentate pedicellariz are richer developed. — The triphyllous pedicellarice are as usual,
like small tridentate ones. The spicules are long, spinulose rods (Pl. XIV. Fig. 27 a-b), in striking contrast
to the very small spicules of canaliferus,; they lie transversely to the longitudinal axis of the tubefeet,
indistinctly arranged in two or three series. The plates of the rosette of the frontal tube-feet are well
developed, reaching to the point of the lobes.

Schizaster Edwardst Cotteau is nearly related to canaliferus and orbignyanus. Professor Joubin
has with the greatest liberality, for which I cannot thank him enough, sent me one of the type-
specimens for examination; I am thus able to give some additional information of characters which
are not mentioned in Cotteau’s diagnosis of the species. The shape of the test is upon the whole
like that of canaliferus; only the anterior ambulacral furrow is a little broader, its sides being almost
perpendicular, whereas in cavaliferus they bend somewhat over the furrow. The pores are arranged in
a single regular series — the most prominent difference from canaliferus. The labrum does not reach
the second ambulacral plate of the adjoining series; there are 5—6 large subanal tubefeet, the first of
these being on the 5th ambulacral plate. The lateral fasciole passes over the 13th ambulacral plate.
Only two genital pores, as pointed out by Cotteau. Of the pedicellarie I can give but very little
information, having found only a single small tridentate pedicellaria with simple, leafshaped valves,
and another small form (Pl. XIV. Fig. 10) which is probably a small rostrate pedicellaria. The spi-
cules and rosette-plates as in cavaliferus. — Though insufficiently known this species is easily disting-
uished from canaliferus by its single series of pores in the odd anterior ambulacrum and from orézgny-
anus (the northern form) by its spicules. But it is not possible for the present to say, if it is not per-
haps’ identical with the Caribbean form of ordignyanus, which might, from a zoogeographical point of
view, not be improbable. Also it has a very great likeness to Sch. dacunosus, and it is impossible for
the present to give other distinguishing characters between these two species than their geographical
distribution: one in the Indo-Pacific Ocean, the other at the Coast of Guinea; (5. dacunosus also has
a single series of pores in the anterior ambulacrum and quite small spicules). Before the Caribbean
form of S. orbignyanus has been closely examined and the pedicellariz of S. Edwards¢ have likewise
been made sufficiently known, it is impossible to judge of the specific value of these two forms and

their mutual relations.

Professor Déderlein (Op. cit. p. 255) has pointed out that among the (recent) species referred
to the genus Schzzaster two groups may be distinguished, differing markedly by their globiferous
pedicellarize: in one group (S. fragilis, capensis, antarcticus and ventricosus) the valves of the globi-
ferous pedicellarize end in a single long, sharp tooth, in the other (\S. phzlippi, canaliferus and japonicus)
they end in 4—6 short teeth. Though the number of genital pores is not in accordance with this
grouping, as might have been expected, Professor Déderlein thinks that «nach Untersuchung auch
der anderen Arten von Schizaster die Aufteilung dieser Gattung in mindestens zwei Gattungen nach
den Merkmalen der globiferen Pedicellarien zu erwarten sei(n)». — In «Revision of Echini» Agassiz
says of Sch. ventricosus that it is «intermediate between the species of the group of the genus to
which S\ fragilis and S. Philippi belong and that formed by .S. canaliferus and .S. gibberulus». It follows

from this that also Agassiz is inclined to divide the species into two groups, but he does not work

120 ECHINOIDEA. II.

out this grouping more exactly. Recently Fourtau (Op. cit. p.433) establishes two groups in the
genus Schizaster, founded on the arrangement of the pores of the anterior ambulacrum, viz. 1. the
Sch. canaliferus-group with these pores biserially arranged, and 2. the Sch. /ragils-group with the
pores arranged in a single series. He does not mention which species he refers to each group.

Before entering on a discussion of this question of the subdivision of the genus Schizaster |
must give a few synonymic remarks on some of the species. As pointed out by Lovén (Echinoidea
descr. by Linnzeus. p. 168) the Schzzaster japonicus A. Ag. is identical with Linné’s Z7chimus lacunosus;
the species will then have to be named Schizaster lacunosus (1,.). With this species I find further to
be synonymous the .Sch. ventricosus Gray. This seems, indeed, quite improbable, judging from the
figures of Sch. japonicus and ventricosus given in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea Pl. XXXVI; the two
forms figured there are, I quite agree, distinct species, but the species represented in Figs. 1-—3 is not
ventricosus Gray, it is probably identical with the Sch. latifrons A. Ag. described in the «Panamic
Deep-Sea Echini». (This will be verified in Part II of the «Siam-Echinoidea»). On the other hand
I cannot agree with Professor Agassiz in regarding Sch. /wkesii Gray as a synonym only of
lacunosus (ventricosus), 1 even think it more probable that it will have to be referred to another
genus (Periaster), as has been pointed out above (p.108). — The matter: Schizaster gibberulus —
Savignyi has been cleared up by Fourtau (Op.cit.); I quite agree with him in this question. Finally
I may notice that the Sch. afinis Studer named in «Bronn» p. 1392, is, according to a communication
to me in a letter from Dr. Meissner, the same as Sch. capensis Studer. The recent species hitherto
known of the genus Schizaster are thus: Sch. dacunosus (L..), canaliferus (Lank.), orbignyanus A. Ag.,
Edwardsz Cott. Savignyt Fourtau, gibberulus Ag., Philippi (Gray), fragilis (Dib. Kor.), Moseleyr A. Ag.,
capensis Studer, antarcticus Déderl., latifrons A. Ag., Townsend? A. Ag.

If we regard the shape of the test of the different Schzzaster-species, we will at once find
them to form two distinct groups. In the one the test is high and the ambulacra rather much deepened,
in the other the test is low and the ambulacra only slightly deepened. To the former group belong:
S. canaliferus, orbignyanus, Edwardsi and lacunosus; to the latter: .S. fragilis, Moseleyt, capensis, lati-
Jrons, Townsendi, antarcticus and Philippi. A third group is perhaps formed by the species gzbderalus
and Savigny?. If we now review the more important characters of these species, we shall find the
species of these groups to agree also in other important features, viz. the number of genital pores
and the structure of the globiferous pedicellariz. In the camnaliferus-group there are two, in the /ragzlis-
group three genital pores. To be sure the statements of Agassiz regarding the genital pores of «Sch.
ventricosus» and «Sch. japonicus» do not agree with this; but these statements are based partly on
wrong determinations. Desor (Synopsis des Ech. foss. Pl. 43.2) figures the apical system of a Sch,
canaliferus with three large genital pores; but this is evidently an abnormal and seldom occurring
case: the third pore is in the posterior interambulacrum, not in the anterior left genital plate as in
the other species with 3 genital pores. (To declare the figure to be wrong, as is done by Tornquist?
seems rather hardy, as the figure is evidently very carefully drawn). In «Catalogue raisonné» (p. 121,

Note) L. Agassiz says: «Je connais des individus dune méme espéce (Schizaster lacunosus), dont les

" Die Beschaffenheit des Apicalfeldes yon Schizaster und seine geologische Bedeutung. Zeitschr. deutsch, geol. Ge-

sellsch, 55. 1903. p. 377.

ECHINOIDEA. II. I2I

— ~ a ———— = ——$—_— — —s

uns ont trois, les autres quatre et d'autres deux pores»; but in the first place it is, as remarked by
Lutken (Bidr. til Kundsk. om Ech. p. 115), uncertain which species is really meant, and in the second
place there is no certainty at all that these specimens have really all been of the same species. —
For the /ragils-group no case is known of the occurrence of more or fewer than three genital pores.
It is thus beyond doubt that the number of genital pores is an important and constant character,
distinguishing the two groups of species. — This feature has been shown by Tornquist (Op. cit.) to
be of importance from a palzontological point of view. The oldest (Cretaceous) .Sc/zzaster-species
have all 4 pores; from these the development goes in two separate directions: to the symmetrical
2-pored and the asymmetrical 3-pored species; the latter form is not known before the Miocene. The
recent Sch. gibberulus and Savignyi thus seem to be comparatively primitive forms. Pomel (Op. cit.
p. 36) makes Sch. gibberulus the type of a separate genus, Paraster, which may perhaps be correct; as
long as the pedicellarize of this species (and Savignyc) are unknown, it seems, however, better to leave
the question undecided; but it is worth noticing that these two species differ from the canaliferus-
group also in the lower shape of the test, besides in having four genital pores.

Another character uniting the species of each group much in the same way is found in the
structure of the globiferous pedicellaria, as emphasized by Professor Déderlein (loc. cit). In the
canaliferus-group the valves have the terminal opening surrounded by a circle of teeth, in the /rag/lis-
group the valves end in a single, large tooth with the opening at its base on one side; S. Philippii
alone makes an exception here, the valves having four teeth round the terminal opening. Professor
Doderlein finds the globiferous pedicellariz of this species to belong to the canaliferus-type; I
cannot quite agree with him herein, finding those of .S. Ph7lippi to form a separate type. (For a more
detailed account thereof I must refer to the Report on the Echinoidea of the Swedish South Polar
Expedition). Other characters of importance distinguishing these groups I have not been able to find.
The latero-anal fasciole passes over the 1o—r1th plate of the posterior ambulacra in fragilis and
Philippi, over the 12—13th in canaliferus and lacunosus — but in orbignyanus it may also pass over
the r1th plate. The first of the large subanal tubefeet is found on the 5th ambulacral plate in canal
ferus and lacunosus, on the 6th in fragilis, Philippi, orbignyanus and gibberulus. The character taken
by Fourtau (Op. cit.) to distinguish the two groups, viz. the arrangement of the pores in the anterior
ambulacrum in a single or double series, does not hold good either. In orbignyanus, lacunosus and
Edwardst they are arranged in a single series — but nobody, I think, will deny that these species
belong to the same group as canaliferus, which has the pores arranged in a double series. — The other
pedicellarize as well as the spicules do not afford characters by which to distinguish the groups. But
the three characters pointed out above: the form of the test, the number of genital pores and the struc-
ture of the globiferous pedicellarie agree in the most beautiful manner and show that the species
canaliferus, orbignyanus, Edwardst and lacunosus form one distinct group, the species /ragzles, Moseleyz,
antarcticus, capensts, Townsendi and latifrons another group.t — To the latter group Sch. Philippit can
scarcely be reckoned. It differs from the other species in having the apical system and vertex almost
central, the shape of the test thus differing considerably from that of the other species of the /ragzlvs-

1 It may be noticed that the globiferous pedicellariz of S. Edwards? are unknown. Those of S. AMloseleyi, Townsendi
and /attfrons I have examined and found to be of the /rag7/is-type.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 16

122 ECHINOIDEA. II.

group (except cafens7s), in which the apical system and vertex is decidedly posterior. Further the
globiferous pedicellariz differ from those of the other species, as pointed out above. It might perhaps
not be unreasonable to regard the form of globiferous pedicellariz in this species as a more primitive
form which has developed into the form found in the /ragzlis-group. The fact that in this group some-
times pedicellariz occur with two endteeth instead of one (Pl. XIV. Fig. 24) might then perhaps be a
case of atavism. The central position of the apical system likewise seems to indicate that this species
is more primitive than the /ragzlis-group. — Accordingly I think it reasonable to regard this species
as the representative of a special group, besides the /ragilis- and canaliferus-group.

The question now arises, if these three or four groups must be regarded as distinct genera.
Gray (Cat. rec. Ech.) groups the species in nearly the same way as is here shown to be the natural
grouping; he regards the groups as subgenera, proposing for the canaliferus-group the name Vina,
for the /ragilis-group (to which .S. gzbserudus is incorrectly referred) the name 4rzsaster, whereas the
name Schézaster s.str. is retained for .S. (Mozra) atropos. The species Philippi is referred to the genus
Tripylus, which is certainly not correct (see Echinoidea of the Swedish South Polar Expedition); but
on the other hand it is certainly not correct either to regard this species as a typical Schzzaster, a
«Southern representative» of S./ragili’s as is done by Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p. 612). Fourtau (Op. cit.)
emphasizes that his canaliferus- and fragilis-group must really be considered only as groups of species
within the genus Schizaster, not as sections — «et surtout je me garde bien de donner un nom 4 ces
groupes, car ils passeraient vite 4 Pétat de genre pour certains taxonomistes plus desireux d’obtenir
des coupes nouvelles que d’étudier 4 fond les variations d’un type». — Though I! agree that when a
separate name of a group of species is proposed it will easily be made to rank as a generic name, I
think the present case is so distinct that it is necessary to give the groups names as subgenera — I
would even not be very horrified in seeing them made genera. Otherwise Gray has, as said above,
already given such names, viz. Nina for the canaliferus-group, Brisaster for the /ragilis-group. The
latter name is excellent and must be taken into use again; on the other hand the name Ana,
which is quite without meaning, need not be used for the canaliferus-group; this group may simply
be termed Shzzaster s. str. — For 8. Philippit the name Tripylaster n. subgen. may be proposed.
If the species ezbberulus and Savignyi are rightly made a separate group the name /araster Pomel
will be kept by it.

Unfortunately the name Schizaster is perhaps not rightly assigned to this genus. The type of
the genus Schizaster, established by L. Agassiz in his «Prodrome d’une Monogr. des Radiaires» is
S. atropos, now named Moira. This name is a changing of the original name Moera Michelin, which
was preoccupied for a Crustacean. Strictly speaking JMVovra is the same name as J/oera and ought
not to be used for the Kchinid, which ought then to have its original name Schzzaster — if not the
yet older name Fchinocardiwm Gray!—In his paper in «Annals of Philosophy» 1825 Gray establishes
the genus Lchinocardium with £. atropos as the first species. According to a strict interpretation of
the rules of nomenclature the name Echinocardium ought to be used for Mora atropos etc. and
the names Schizaster Ag., Moera Mich. and Moira A. Ag. would be synonyms thereof. Instead of
Schizaster the name Ova Leske (van Phelsum) ought to be used, Gray (loc. cit) naming only the

species canaliferus under this genus. Instead of Achinocardium in its present use a new name ought

. ECHINOIDEA. II. 12

| Ge

to be given, if the name Amphidetus can not be retained, which seems not impossible, though
Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. p.15) thinks it could not be retained, as it is a synonym of Lchinocardium
Gray — but of Achinocardium in its later modified sense. — These are, indeed, so disagreeable changes
in nomenclature that I will not propose to make them, the more so as so eminent authorities as
Prof. Ludwig and Dr. F. A. Bather, before whom I have put the whole question, are of opinion
that it is not absolutely needed. I will then retain the names in the sense in which they are used in
«Revision of Echini», but I fear it is not in accordance with the strict rules, and I, tor my part, sincerely
regret that Agassiz, who has traced the history of these names and given it fully in his most ex-
cellent Chronological List in the «Revision», did not make these changes in the nomenclature on that
occasion. It might have been done at that time without causing much trouble. To now change A/orra
to Echinocardium or Schizaster, and Schizaster in its present sense to Ova or even to Sfatangus' would
not fail to cause a great deal of confusion.

The genus Schizaster should then be thus subdivided:

Subgen. Paraster Pomel. Test not very high. Petals and frontal ambulacrum much deepened,
apical system posterior; four genital pores. (Globiferous pedicellariz unknown.)

Species: gibberulus Ag. Savigny: Fourtau.

Subgen. Schizaster s. str. (Syn. Nina Gray). Test very high; petals and frontal ambulacrum
much deepened; apical system posterior; two genital pores. The globiferous pedicellarize with a circle
of teeth round the terminal opening.

Species: canaliferus (Lank.), lacunosus (L.), orbignyanus A. Ag., Edwardst Cott.

Subgen. Z7ipylaster Mrtsn. Test low; petals and frontal ambulacrum not much deepened; apical
system subcentral; three genital pores. Globiferous pedicellarie with four teeth round the terminal
opening.

Species: Philippi Gray.

Subgen. Brisaster Gray. Test low; petals and frontal ambulacrum not much deepened; apical
system posterior (or subcentral); three genital pores. Globiferous pedicellarize with a single large tooth
at the point of the valves at one side of the terminal opening.

Species: fragilis (Diib. Kor.), capensis Stud. Moseleyi A. Ag., latifrons A. Ag. Townsendi A. Ag.,

antarcticus Doderlein.

28. Spatangus purpureus O. F. Miiller.
Pl. Il. Figs. 8, 12, 14, 16. Pl. XVI. Figs. 1—2, 5—10, 22, 24—25, 27, 29, 31—32, 34-

Synonyms: Sfatangus meridionalis Risso.
— spinosissimus 1, Agass.
: cy a
— Regine Gray.

t Lambert: Description des Echinides fossiles de la province de Barcelona. Mém. Soc. géol. de France. IX. 1902.
p- 55. Note.

16*

124 ECHINOIDEA. IL.

Principal Literature: O. Fr. Miiller: Zoologiz Danice Prodromus. 1776. (No. 2850).1 Zoologia
Danica. 1788. p.5. Tab. VI. — Leske: Additamenta ad J. Th. Kleinii Nat. Disp. Ech. 1788. p. 170 (235).
Tab. XLIII. Figs. 3—5. XLV. Fig. 5. — Philippi: Beschreibung einiger neuen Echinodermen etc. Arch.
f. Naturgesch. 1845. I. p.350. — Gray: Catalogue of the Recent Echinida in the Collection of the
Brit. Mus. I. Echinida Irregularia. 1855. p.47. Pl. IIL.31. — L. Agassiz & Desor: Catalogue raisonné,
p.112. — Sars: Norges Echinodermer. p. 99. Middelhavets Littoralfauna. p. 118. — A. M. Norman:
Shetland Final Dredging Report. II. Crustacea ..... Echinodermata etc. Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1868. p. 315.
— H. Bolau (82). p.3. — A. Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 158, 565 (Numerous figures). — Lovén:
Etudes sur les Echinoidées. Pl. XXXVI. On Pourtalesia. Pl. X. Fig. 109. XII. 145. XVIII. 209—19. —
Koehler (217). p.127. — Perrier: Recherches sur les Pédicellaires, p. 178. Pl. VII. Figs. 4, 7. — Maz-
zetti: Catologo degli Echinidi fossili d. Coll. Mazzetti esistente nella R. Univ. di Modena. Mem. Acad.
Modena. (2) XI. 18906. p. 425. Fig.6. — Grieg: Oversigt nordl. Norges Echinodermer. p. 33. — Ludwig:
Echinodermen d. Mittelmeeres. p. 560. — Bell: Catalogue British Ech. p. 165. Pl. XVI. 10. — Hoyle:
Revised List British Ech. p. 424. — Déderlein: Arktische Seeigel. Fauna Arctica. IV. p. 383. Die
Echinoiden der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. p. 260. Taf. XX XIII. 2. XLVI. 1.

Non: A. Agassiz: «Challenger»-Echinoidea. p. 171. — Verrill: Results of the Explorations
.... «Albatross» in 1883. p. 551.

Several other less important literary references are found in the. works quoted of Bell and
Ludwig, and in the «Revision of Echini».

Of this very well known and often described and figured species I have only a little to remark.

The test is very often unequally developed, one side (always(?) the right) being somewhat
prominent in front of the other (Pl. II. Fig.8); the specimens from the Faroe Islands especially show
this feature very distinctly and almost constantly, but I have seen it just as distinct in specimens
from the Kattegat and from the Mediterranean. Even in a specimen only 16™"in length this obliquity
is already distinctly seen. — The largest specimen I have seen (from Roscoff) is 115™™ long, r17™™
broad (60"™ high); though differing from the usual form in being broader than long it undoubtedly
belongs to this species. Some specimens from the Doggerbank show a remarkable deformity, the
actinal plastron being quite hollow. (Similar deformities also occur in Arissopsis lyrifera and Echino-
cardium flavescens from the North Sea).

The pedicellarize are rather well known. Perrier (loc. cit.) and Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. Pl. XXVI.-
Figs. 24-27) have described and figured the two forms of tridentate pedicellarize. Another form, the
triphyllous pedicellariz, has been described, but not figured, by Koehler (loc. cit.). The most impor-
tant contribution, however, is given by Déderlein (Op. cit.), who gives good photographic figures of
the different forms of tridentate and of the triphyllous pedicellarie. My figures of these forms were
made a long time before Professor Déderlein’s work was published; as they show several minute
details more distinctly than Déderlein’s figures, I think it not superfluous to publish some of them.

Besides these forms of pedicellaricee I have also found ophicephalous ones, whereas globiferous pedi-
cellarie have not been found. Déderlein (Echinoiden d. deutsch. Tiefsee-Exp. p. 262) has found a

*" Agassiz puts a question mark at this quotation; there cannot, however, be the slightest doubt that this species
is really meant, since Miiller in «Zoologia Danica» himself refers to this place, and the diagnosis is the same.

- ECHINOIDEA. II. I25

single globiferous pedicellaria, resembling those of Schizaster Philippii, in a young specimen from the
Mediterranean.

The tridentate pedicellarize occur, as has been said already, in two distinct forms, one with
elongate, slender valves, the other with short and robust valves. The slender form occurs in very
different sizes, from ca. 0-2™ to ca. 2™™ (length of head). The shape of the head is well seen in
Perrier’s Pl. VII.4.a. The valves (Pl. XVI. Figs. 1,9) are long and narrow, widely apart, joining only
at the point which is a little widened, spoonshaped, with the edges finely and closely serrate. The
edge of the lower, narrow part of the blade is more or less coarsely serrate, but it may sometimes be
quite smooth. The bottom of the blade is abruptly deepened in a narrow stripe along the median line,
with some crossbeams passing over it. In side view this deepening is seen as a narrow crest along
the back of the blade, in dorsal view of the blade it is seen as a sharply defined longitudinal keel,
formed by two knotted edges. The basal part is remarkably narrow; the apophysis is large, mostly with
smooth edge. The three points looking downwards from the basal part, mentioned and figured by
Perrier, I have never seen.

In smaller specimens of this kind of pedicellariz the valves join to a larger extent, in quite
small ones they join in their whole length. The blade is comparatively broad, simply leafshaped
(Pl. XVI. Fig. 27). All transitional forms are found between the largest and the smallest specimens, as
is very well shown in the figures given by Déderlein. Two-valved specimens sometimes occur.
The neck is well developed, though rather short in the largest specimens. The stalk is an irregularly
fenestrated tube, with a small milled ring at the lower end for the attachment of the muscles, just
as in the spines, only, of course, much more feebly developed. Such a ring is found on the stalk of
all the pedicellarize except the ophicephalous ones.

The second form of tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XVI. Fig. 8) is much coarser, with a thick head
and a short neck. The valves (Pl. XVI. Figs. 7, 10) are much narrowed in the middle, but the basal part
passes evenly into the blade (a rather conspicuous difference from A/acropneustes spatangotdes, (comp.
p. 128. Pl. XVI. Figs. 3,13). The edge of the outer part of the blade makes an obtuse angle with the
narrowed part; it is finely serrate. The point of the blade is generally somewhat produced inwards.
There is a more or less developed meshwork in the lower part of the blade. The dorsal side of the
blade is uneven, knotted (Pl. XVI. Fig. 10). In larger specimens of this kind of pedicellariz the nar-
rowed median part of the blade may be rather long (Pl. XVI. Fig. 25), such valves looking more like
usual tridentate pedicellarie. Perrier (Op.cit. p.278)' names this kind ophicephalous pedicellariz in
spite of the fact that no bow is found below the valves. Now, to be sure, it may well be maintained
that it is no absolutely necessary criterion for ophicephalous pedicellarie that these arcs must be
present (see also de Meijere. Siboga-Ech. p. 244—45) — as well as, on the other hand, that such arcs
may occur also on undoubtedly tridentate pedicellariz, as has been shown both by de Meijere and
by myself. In this case, however, it cannot be doubted that these pedicellarie are tridentate and not

ophicephalous, because true ophicephalous pedicellariz of quite typical structure are also found. —

t At this place reference is made to a figure of a large tridentate pedicellaria (Pl. VII. 4. a), but the text and the
explanation of the plates leave no doubt that the Fig. 4.b is meant, which evidently represents a pedicellaria of this second
tridentate form.

126 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Agassiz (Rev. p. 666) rightly refers this form to the tridentate form, though I might not strictly call
them «ordinary tridactyle» which is better said of the form with the slender valves. Koehler (217)
follows Perrier in regarding them as ophicephalous pedicellarie.

The ophicephalous pedicellarize (Pl. XVI. Fig.6) are generally few in number and have only
been found on young specimens; probably, however, it would also be possible to find some few
among the small abactinal spines in larger specimens; they are found only on the abactinal side and
in the posterior ambulacra on the actinal side. The valves are rather elongate, very narrow above the
articular surface, the side parts of the basal part being very small; the blade widens towards the point
which bends inwards; rather strong teeth along the edge, continuing along the sides of the apo-
physis almost down to the articular surface. The blade is deepened in the middle part, with very few
holes and no keel continuing over it from the apophysis. There is a small process from the bow
which is the outermost of the three. There is no neck, and the upper end of the rather compact stalk
is cupshaped.

The triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XVI. Figs. 2,22) are very small and delicate (the head ca. o-14™™
long). The valves are simply leafshaped, the basal part being a little narrower than the blade, whose
lower corners are rather sharp; the edge is finely serrate on a small part at the lower end. On the
outer side there is a slightly prominent keel at the lower end. — This kind of pedicellariz has first
been seen by Koehler; what Agassiz mentions as «typical trifoliate» pedicellarie (Rev. p. 666,
Pl. XXVI. 24) are evidently small tridentate pedicellarize and cannot be said to be «characteristic of
the Spatangoids proper».

The spicules of the tubefeet have been described and figured by Perrier; it may only be
mentioned here that no spicules are found in the transformed tubefeet (gills) of the paired abactinal
ambulacra — as upon the whole spicules are generally wanting in these tubefeet in the irregular
Kchini. As for the structure of the penicillate tubefeet round the mouth I may refer to the very
beautiful researches of Lovén. The intestine and genital organs do not contain spicules in their walls.

A young specimen of this species, ca. 12™ in length, has been figured and described by
Agassiz (Revision of Ech. p. 331. Pl. XI. f. Figs. 19g—22), and further Lovén has given very impor-
tant information especially of the development of the apical system (On Pourtalesia. p. 74,77. Pl. XVIII.
Figs. 209— 219); the smallest specimen examined by Lovén was 5:4" in length. From the St. 86 of
the «Ingolf» there are some small specimens, the youngest only 4™™ in length, which enable me to
give some additional information of the changes during growth in this species.

The specimen of 4™™ length (Pl. XVI. Fig. 20, 31, 34) differs very considerably in outline, espe-
cially in side view, from the grown specimens. The anal system is on the abactinal side, rather near
the vertex; the actinal plastron forms a rather prominent hood, the point of which is surrounded by
the fasciole, which is, in the spine-covered specimen, very conspicuous. Only one ambulacral plate
the 6th,t reaches within the fasciole; the 7th is just traversed by the fasciole. No pores are accordingly
as yet developed within the fasciole (Pl. XVI. Fig. 24). The actinostome is as yet almost quite embry-
onal, the labrum only just beginning to widen anteriorly. The abactinal ambulacra are very simple;

* In this specimen it is abnormaliy the 5th plate in Ambulacrum I. a, which reaches within the fasciole. In V.b it
is the 6th, as is the normal case.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 127

in the frontal ambulacrum the plates are rather elongate, with single pores; in the antero-lateral
ambulacra small, single pores have just begun to appear, in the postero-lateral no pores are seen as
yet. The actinal tubefeet are already penicillate, though only with few filaments; the frontal tubefeet
are small, by no means very prominent, which is repeatedly said by Agassiz to be an embryonic
feature (comp. above p.96). Only ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellariz are developed, the former
being especially numerous.

Agassiz points out that the specimen figured by him is «remarkable for its globular shape»,
which is likewise repeatedly emphasized as an embryonic character. As shown by the figures given
here the specimen of 4™™ is by no means of globular shape, and it does not suit better for the later
stages. Specimens of g and 14™™ length are comparatively not more elevated or even globular than
that of 4™™. If the figure 22. Pl. XI f of «Revision of Ech.» is correct in outline, it scarcely repre-
sents Spat. purpureus, but perhaps S. Raschi, or (if it be an American specimen — comp. below)
Macropneustes spatangoides. — In the specimen of 9™ length the actinostome has nearly its definitive
shape, only the labrum is not yet prominent over the mouth-opening. The posterior end is nearly
vertical, the actinal plastron being only a little prominent beyond the anal area. The abactinal ambu-
lacra are not much more developed than in the specimen of 4™™ length, but double pores have
appeared in all of them, though only in the posterior series in the paired ambulacra. The subanal
plastron (Pl. XVI. Fig. 32) has almost reached its definite form, the seventh plate reaching well within
the fasciole and the eighth being traversed by the fasciole and just reaching a little into the enclosed
area. The pore in plate 7 has not yet appeared. — At a size of 14—16™™ the specimens have upon
the whole the characters of the grown specimens, except that the frontal ambulacrum is much less
deepened and the petals are still much narrower than in the adult specimens. — Regarding the devel-
opment of the apical system, and the appearance of the genital pores I may refer to Lovéni (loc. cit),
with whose results my own quite agree.

This species was taken by the «Ingolf» at the following stations:

St. 86 (65° 03’ Lat. N. 23° 47’ Long. W. 76 fathoms ? C. Bottom temp.) 9 specimens.
— 87 (65°02 — 23°56! — rio — ? — — )6 —
= SOS Ie) Una oo eee SRO a se

Numerous specimens were taken by the author at the Faroe Islands, 13 miles W. by S. of
«Munken», ca. 150 fathoms, and E. off «Fugl6», ca. 70 fathoms.

Bell (Catalogue. p. 166) gives a bathymetrical distribution of this species of 5—530 fathoms;
I cannot find in the literature the species recorded from a greater depth than 458 fathoms (« Porcupine»,
Faroe-Channel. Bell loc. cit.). It seems most common at lower depths, down to about 200fathoms. Its
geographical distribution is: along the whole west Coast of Europe, from the Mediterranean and the
Azores to the Northern Coast of Norway (Troms6) and the South Coast of Iceland, but not the North
Coast, and it is not found in the cold area of the North Atlantic. Further it is said to occur at the
Bermudas («Challenger»-Ech. p.171) and at the East Coast of North America (Rathbun. Catalogue
(337). p- 288); Verrill, loc. cit.). The statement of its occurring at the Caribbean Islands (Prel. Rep.
«Blake»-Echini (6). p.83) was corrected by Agassiz himself («Blake»-Echini. p. 64) as being caused by

a wrong identification of I/acropnestes spatangoides A. Ag. But also the other statements of the occur-

128 ECHINOIDEA. II.

rence of Sfatangus purpureus in American waters are due to confusion with Macropneustes. One
of the specimens in the U.S. National Museum Professor Rathbun most liberally sent me to Copen-
hagen for examination, the others I examined during my visit to America last summer. I likewise
had then occasion to examine specimens in the collection of Yale College. All these specimens I found
to be Macropneustes, though perhaps not all Alacr. spatangoides (see below). The specimen from
the Bermudas, taken’ by the «Challenger», I have examined in the British Museum; it is likewise
Macropneustes (the characteristic branching fasciole is distinctly developed). It may then be taken
as rather certain that Spatangus purpureus does not occur at the American side of the Atlantic; in
any case it has not hitherto been found there.

That the Sfatangus of the Mediterranean (.S. mertdionalis Risso, S. regime Gray) is identical
with the Sfaz. purpureus of the Northern Atlantic I quite agree with Agassiz, Ludwig, Koehler,
Bell a.o. In the pedicellariz no difference between the Mediterranean and the northern form is found.
To be sure, Perrier (Op.cit. p. 180) states that those of S. meridionalis are a little more elongate;
but he has certainly seen only a few pedicellariz, otherwise he must have found them elongate in
various degrees. The differences in the shape of the test pointed out by Philippi and Sars (Op. cit)
are not constant, though I agree that the Mediterranean form is generally a little more arched than
the northern form; the latter is often as high as the Mediterranean form, but it is generally more
sloping towards the ambitus. Norman (Op. cit.) points out several other characters, which would cer-
tainly distinguish the Mediterranean form as a good species — but, as is already pointed out by
Hoyle (Op. cit.), it is Spatangus Rascht, which Norman has mistaken for the Mediterranean form. —
Judging from the material at my disposal of the Mediterranean form of Sat. purpureus it can at most
be regarded as a rather indistinct variety. — The type of SS. sAzmoszssimus Ag. 1 have not seen; but
it cannot be doubted that it is identical with pzrpwreus, since no other low species of the genus

Spatangus is known from the European seas to which it might be referred. («Espéce deprimée»).

A few words may here be said on Macropneustes spatangoides A. Ag. The pedicellariz are upon
the whole very like those of Sfat. purpureus, but some differences may be noticed. The tridentate
pedicellarize are quite like those of S. purpureus except the largest forms (Pl. XVI. Figs. 20, 33) which
have the outer, widened end of the blade shorter and more spoonshaped; the edge is bent strongly
inwards at the lower end of the widened part; the keel of the blade is not distinct. The stalk is very
short and thick, the neck quite short. This large form (2™™ head) I have not found in Sfat. purpureus.
The second form of tridentate pedicellarie (Pl. XVI. Figs. 3,13) differs from the corresponding form
in .S. purpureus in having the basal part sharply limited from the blade, the edge forming a distinct
angle between the basal part and the blade, whereas in S. purpureus the one continues evenly into
the other without a distinct angle. The blade is rather small, though not so small, generally, as in the
figured one. Elongated specimens of this kind of pedicellariz (1™™ head) (Pl. XVI. Fig. 30) are found
as in Spat. purpureus. The ophicephalous pedicellariz (Pl. XVI. Fig. 4) are rather different from those
of purpureus, the blade being ‘shorter and the basal part being more developed than in that species.
The triphyllous pedicellarize (Pl. XVI. Fig. 15) are mainly like those of S. purpureus. The spicules are

irregular, more or less branched rods. — The pedicellariz mentioned here were taken from the «Chal-

ECHINOIDEA. II. 129

lenger-specimen from Bermudas — in the «Albatross»s specimens the short form of tridentate pedi-
cellarie differs a little from that of the «Challenger»-specimen, the outer, widened part of the blade
being a little shorter and sharper set off from the narrow lower part (Pl. XVI. Fig. 14); quite short
specimens of this form, corresponding to that figured in Pil. XVI. Fig.3, I have not seen in any of
these specimens; neither were ophicephalous pedicellarie found in any of them. This difference in
the pedicellariz is certainly too unreliable for regarding the «Challenger»-specimen as specifically dis-
tinct from the «Albatross»-specimens. Nevertheless I am not quite sure, whether or not more than one
species of Macropneustes is found in the American waters. So considerable differences are found among
the specimens in the outline of the test, in the development of the petals, in the number and size of
the primary tubercles of the abactinal side, that it might well deserve a close investigation, if all
these different looking specimens are really one and the same species. I may mention here that in a
specimen from «Albatross» St. 1109 in the Museum of Yale College, there is no trace of the peripetalous
fasciole; the specimen otherwise agrees with JZacropneustes, and in any case it is no Spatangus pur-
pureus, as might otherwise be inferred from the wanting of the fasciole.

The genera Sfatangus and Jlacropneustes are evidently very closely related. In the structure
of the test, pedicellariz and tubefeet they agree almost completely; in fact, the only essential differ-

ence is the presence of the peripetalous fasciole in J/acropneustes.

29. Spatangus Raschi Lovén.
Pl.I. Figs.4—5. PIII. Fig. 19. Pl XVI. Figs. 17, 23, 28.

Literature: Norman: Shetland Dredging Report lI. Rep. British Assoc. 1868. p. 315. («Spa-
tangus meridionalis»). — Lovén: En ny Art af Slegtet Spatangus fran Nordsjén. Ofvers. Vet. Akad.
Foérhandl. 1869. p. 733. Tafl. XVIII. — Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 159, 567. Pl. XXV. Fig. 35.
XXVI. Fig. 23. — Wyville Thomson: «Porcupine»-Echinoidea. p. 750. — Grieg: Overs. nordlige
Norges Echinodermer. p. 33. — Bell: Echinodermata off the S.W. Coast of Ireland (69). 1889. p. 442.
— Catalogue Brit. Echinoderms. p. 167. Pl. XVI. Fig. 11. — Hoyle: Revised list of British Echinoidea.
p.426. — Doéderlein: Arktische Seeigel. Fauna Arctica. IV. p. 383. Echinoiden d. deutschen Tiefsee-
Exped. p. 262. Taf. XX XIII. Fig.4. XLVIII. Fig. 2.

Non.: Agassiz: «Challenger»-Echinoidea. p. 171. — Bell: Echinoderma of South Africa. I.
Echinoidea. p. 173.

This species is, like the preceding one, very well described, so that only a few remarks have

to be added. — Like Sp. purpureus it may have the two sides of the test unequally developed, though
not so much as in that species, judging from the specimens before me. — Photographic figures are

here given of a large, beautiful specimen, quite typical, except in the curious fact that the two pores
included by the subanal fasciole are present only on one side. — The subanal fasciole is evidently
apt to disappear in this species. Of 8 specimens examined by me the fasciole is completely developed
only in two; in three of them it is more or less rudimentary, and in three of them it has quite
disappeared.

The pedicellarie have been figured by Agassiz in «Rev. of Ech.» (the short tridentate form)

and by Déderlein (Echinoidea d. deutsch. Tiefsee-Exp. Pl. XLVIII. 2, the slender form of tridentate

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 17

ECHINOIDEA. II.

pedicellariz). The same kinds of pedicellarize occur as in Sp. purpureus, only the ophicephalous and
globiferous forms have not been found, but it can scarcely be doubted that they occur in this species
too, at any rate in quite young specimens. The long and slender form of tridentate pedicellariz figured
by Déderlein I have not seen; on the other hand I have found a form, which differs rather much
from those of purpureus (Pl. XVI. Fig. 28). They are short and rather broad, with faintly serrate edge
and some meshwork in the bottom of the blade; a median dorsal keel is slightly developed, the basal
part is wide, and the apophysis not very prominent. In larger specimens of this kind (up to 1™™ length
of head) the valves are apart in the lower half of their length; small specimens have simply leaf-
shaped valves and are like those of purpureus. The second form of tridentate pedicellariz (PI. XVI.
Figs. 17,23) resembles that of pwrpurews very much, only the outer edge of the basal part is generally
somewhat serrate; as in pwrpureus the valves may be rather elongate, thus resembling more the slen-
der form. A rather extreme case of this form is shown in Déderlein’s Fig.2.a; I have not seen
such elongate specimens. The triphyllous pedicellariz are like those of purpureus; the stalk of the
pedicellarize as in that species.

The tube-feet and their spicules do not differ from those of purpurens. No spicules are found
in the walls of the intestine and genital organs. A small difference from purpureus is found in the
terminal portion of the spines of the actinal plastron; in Rasch the widened terminal portion is rather broad,
but short, whereas in purpureus it is little broader than the spine itself but occupying a larger portion of
the spine. The edges of this terminal widening are generally serrate in purpureus, smooth in Rasch.

One specimen was taken by the «Ingolf»-Expedition at Stat. 55 (63° 33’ Lat. N., 15° 02’ Long. W.
316 fathoms; bottom temperature 5°9). Further I have myself dredged a specimen at the Faroe Islands,
(East of Suderé, 150 fathoms). 3 specimens were taken at 61° 7' Lat. N., 9° 30’ Long. W. 835 M. 1904.

This species is a decided warm-area form. The Norwegian North Sea-Exped. has dredged it at
several places with a bottom temperature of about 6° — with one remarkable exception: St. 96, where
the temperature was only —11; also the depth of this station (805 fathoms) is remarkably greater than
where this species has elsewhere been taken (ca. 100—500 fathoms). Otherwise this case is quite ana-
logous to what is recorded for Echinus Alexandri. Both species undoubtedly belong to the warm area,
but may thus occasionally occur in places with negative bottom temperature, probably only on the
edge of the warm area, on the slope towards the great cold basin of the Norwegian Sea.

The geographical distribution of Spat. Raschi is in the whole North Atlantic from Norway to
the Azores, but not on the American side. It is further stated in the «Challenger»-Echinoidea to occur
at the Cape of Good Hope, and recently Professor Bell likewise mentions this species from the South
African Sea (Echinoderma of South Africa. I. Echinoidea. p. 173). Professor Déderlein, however, sug-
gests that these specimens will prove to belong to the species 8. capensis, described by him. I have
examined these specimens in the British Museum, and can thus state that they are really S. capensis.
Thus .S. Raschi is not known from the South African Sea.

3e11 (69) mentions some specimens intermediate between the typical purpureas and Raschi,
and he finds it reasonable that the two species may form hybrids. I think he 1s right in suggesting
that. Figures are here given (Pl. II. Figs. 12, 14,16) of a specimen from the Faroe Islands (13 Miles W.

to S. of «Munken», ca. 150 fathoms) which would on account of the high shape of the test decidedly

ECHINOIDEA. II. 131

be referred to S. Aaschz; but the other characters (especially the subanal fasciole and the pedicellarize)
are quite those of purpurews. The petals are somewhat shorter than usual, especially the posterior
ones. The measurements of this specimen are: Length: 54™™, height: 34™™, length of posterior petals:
16™™,." Those of an equal-sized specimen of purpureus are: Length: 60", height: 29", length of
posterior petals: 21™™. I think it rather certain that we have here a hybrid of S. purpureus and
S. Raschi.

I may here take the occasion to give some remarks on Sfat. Liitkeni A. Ag., based on the type
specimen of Spaz. altus Liitken (M.S.), which is stated by Agassiz («Revision of Echini» p. 158) to
be a synonym of S. Lzitkent. There are, however, some points in the description given by Agassiz
in «Revis. of Ech.» p. 564, which do not suit with this specimen, so that it may perhaps be doubtful,
whether it is really identical with S. Zzi¢kenz. Unfortunately Agassiz has given no figures of the
species. Recently Professor Déderlein (Echinoiden d. deutsch. Tiefsee-Exp.) has given some figures
and descriptive remarks of 8S. Leitkent — they do not agree with the present specimen either. I am
unable to decide the question and can only give a description and figures of the type specimen of
S. altus Ltk., leaving it to somebody who has access to the true S. LZzitkenz to decide, if they are
really identical; in that case the specimen figured by D6derlein will probably represent a new
species. In case the present specimen proves to be another species than 5S. Lzitkenz, it will have to keep
the name S. altus Ltk.

This species shows a remarkable union of features characteristic of both SS. purpurews and
Raschi, much in the same way as S. capensis. The test (PII. Figs. r—3) is high as in S. Raschi, but
the tuberculation is more like that of pwrpfureus, no primary tubercles occurring in the ambulacra on
the abactinal side. In the paired abactinal interambulacra the primary tubercles form a very distinct
transverse series on each plate except one or two at the ambitus, an arrangement which is not in
accordance with the descriptions of Agassiz and Déderlein, but rather closely agreeing with the
arrangement in S. capensis. In the description of S. Letkent Agassiz says (p.565): «the small tub-
ercles covering the abactinal surface are much larger and more closely crowded than in the other
species»; perhaps «larger» is a lapsus calami for «smaller» — in any case they are very small in the
present specimen, smaller than in the other species. The actinal plastron is somewhat broader than in
S. Rascht; the test is rather sunken towards the actinostome as in Raschz, but the labrum is short
and broad as in purpureus. The area enclosed by the subanal fasciole is not much larger than in
Raschi; three pairs of pores (four ambulacral plates) are enclosed within the fasciole, a character most
decidedly distinguishing this species from purpurenus, Rascht and capensis', in which only two pairs
of pores (three ambulacral plates) are included by the fasciole. The petals are decidedly broader than
in purpureus and Raschi, whereas S. capensis comes rather near to it also in this respect. According
to the description in «Rev. of Ech.» the lateral petals are proportionally shorter than in the other
species, which does not hold good either of the present specimen. In the specimen figured by Déder-

lein the petals are much narrower than in the present specimen.

t Déderlein does not give any information of this feature in Sf. capensis; of the specimens of this species ex-
amined by me in the British Museum I find in the «Challenger»-specimen only one pair of pores enclosed in the subanal
area, in the other specimen 2 pairs (or at least on one side 2 pores).

ty fs

ECHINOIDEA. II.

The two usual forms of tridentate pedicellarize have been found in this specimen. The slender
form is essentially like that of Awrpureus, but only small specimens were found, so it cannot be taken
for certain that the larger ones are also alike to those of pwrpureus. The short form of tridentate
pedicellariee (Pl. XVI. Fig. 11) has a remarkably small blade, with the edge very faintly serrate (only
to be seen in side view); the upper edge of the basal part is generally a little serrate as in Rasch,
and there may be some irregular prominences from the lower side of the articular surface. Small
specimens of this form have the blade comparatively larger (Pl. XVI. Fig. 19). Specimens with elongate
valves I have not seen, and neither were ophicephalous pedicellariz found. The triphyllous pedicellarize
are like those of the other species. — Spines, tube-feet and spicules do not seem to present charac-
acteristic differences from the other species. (No spines are preserved on the actinal plastron). — The
locality of this specimen is given as «China Sea» (Salmin).

One more recent species is referred to the genus Spatangus, viz. S. (Loncophorus) interruptus
described by Studer (386). I have examined the type specimen in the Berlin-Museum and can state
that it is no Spatangus at all. To what genus it belongs I do not venture to say definitely for

the present.

Lambert in his «Description des Echinides fossiles de la province de Barcelone» (Mém. Soe.
Géol. de France. IX. 1902. p. 54—55)! has called attention to the fact that the genus Spafangus in its
present conception is not the same as Klein’s Sfatangus, which is characterized as having deepened
ambulacra (<insignem habentes lacunam in dorso, sulcosque in vertice»). He then proposes to change
the name of the present genus Sfatangus into Prospatangus, and — if I understand him rightly — to
make Schizaster canaliferus the type of the genus Spatangus Klein. It does not seem to me necessary
thus to change the name into Prospatangus (Leske himself includes Spatangus purpureus in Klein’s
genus Sfatangus), though ITambert is probably right that the present use of the name Spatangus
repose sur une erreur», and especially I would find it extremely unfortunate to give the name Sfa-
tangus to Schizaster. It would not fail to create an extreme confusion, and — as far as I can see —

the rules of nomenclature do not at all necessitate this unfortunate changing of the names.

30. Echinocardium flavescens (O. Fr. Miiller).
Pl. Il. Figs. 2, 10. Pl. XVI. Fig.26. Pl. XVII. Figs. 4, 7—8, 10—11, 17, 27, 31, 40—4I, 45, 50.
Principal synonyms: Spatangus ovatus Leske.
Amphidetus ovatus (Agass.).
Echinocardium ovatum (Gray).

Amphidetus roseus Forbes (?)

Principal Literature: O. Fr. Miiller: Prodromus Zool. Dan. 1776. p. 236. — (Non: Zoologia Da-
nica (Abildgaard). III. p.17. Tab. XCI. 4.1) — Leske: Additam. ad J. Th. Kleinii. Nat. Disp. Echinod.
p. 252. Tab. 49. 12-13. — Forbes: Brit. Starfishes. p. 194. — L. Agassiz & Desor: Cat. raisonné des

‘Comp. also Lambert: Etude sur les Kchinides de la Molasse de Vence, Ann. soc. des Alpes Maritimes. XX.
1906. p. 48.

2 See: Diiben & Koren: Skand. Ech. p. 283—4.

ECHNIOIDEA. II. 133

Ech. p.12. — Diiben & Koren: Skandinaviens Echinod. p. 283. Tab. X.50. — M. Sars: Beskrivelser

og lagttagelser. 1835. p. 46. Pl. 1X. 23. Norges Echinod. p.98. — Gray: Catal. Rec. Echinida. p. 43. —

Perrier: Rech. sur les pédicellaires. p.175. Pl. VII.2.a.—f. — Th. Barrois: Echinod..... Acores (30).
p.12. Catal. Ech. Concarneau (29). p.46. — Bolau: Spat. Hamburger Mus. (82). p. 10. — A. Agassiz:

Revision of Echini. p. 110, 351. Pl. XX.3—4. XXV. 26. — Lovén: Etudes sur les Ech. Pl. IIT. 33—37.
On Pourtalesia. Pl. XI. 127—30. Pl. XV, XVII. — Ludwig: Echinodermen d. Mittelm. p. 561. — Bell:
Catalogue Brit. Echinoderms. p. 171. Pl. XVI. 6—7. — Hoyle: Revised List Brit. Echinoidea. p. 428.
— Koehler: Recherches s. les Echinides de Provence. p. 129. Pl. VII. 57, 59—60. Sur les Echinocar-
dium de la Méditerranée (231). p. 180. Pl. IV. 5—13. — Grieg: Overs. nordlige Norges Echinod. p. 34. —
Doderlein: Arktische Seeigel. Fauna Arctica. p. 384. Echinoiden d. deutschen Tiefsee-Exped. p. 268.

Non.: A. Agassiz: «Challenger»-Echinoidea. p.175. — Bell: Echinoidea. South Africa. p. 174.
— Gasco: Descrizione Ech. nuovi (159). p.6. Fig. 3.

For other literary references see: «Revision of Echini», Bell: Catalogue Brit. Ech, Ludwig:
Echinod. d. Mittelmeeres, and Koehler: Sur les Echinocardium de la Méditerranée.

This species has been so very often described and figured that little new can be added, espe-
cially after the elaborate comparative study of the European species of the genus Achinocardium given
by Koehler. Some few remarks, however, may be made, and especially the pedicellarize of this and
the other species need a closer examination than has hitherto been made of them.

Eminently characteristic of this species are, as pointed out by Koehler, the large tubercles
outside the fasciole, along the anterior ambulacrum and in the lateral interambulacra. Koehler finds
these tubercles more numerous in the small than in the larger specimens. This is not in accordance
with my observations. In a small specimen of 85™™ length I find only a few larger tubercles in the
anterior interambulacra; in a specimen of 1o™™ length there is also a single large tubercle in the
posterior interambulacrum. A specimen of 15™™ length has, besides several large tubercles in the ante-
rior and in the odd posterior interambulacrum, a single large tubercle in the lett lateral interambula-
crum, just behind the left anterior petal. Later on more large tubercles appear, especially along the
posterior edge of the anterior petals, large specimens having here generally several close-set large
tubercles, besides more or fewer spread on the upper plates of these Interambulacra. I have seen no
specimens agreeing with that figured in Pl. 4. Fig.10 by Koehler (Echinocard. de la Méditerranée),
and the suggestion that this figure represents, really, another species, seems not quite unfounded.
(Comp. below, p. 143—4.)

The labrum reaches the anterior end of the second adjoining ambulacral plates; sometimes it
reaches to the middle of these plates, but generally their anterior, inner corner is produced to meet
the labrum. In young specimens (comp. Pl. XV. Fig. 172 in Lovén’s «On Pourtalesia») it does
not reach beyond the first ambulacral plate; in a specimen of 85™™ I find it still reaching only to
the end of the first ambulacral plate. — The anterior edge of the labrum is straighter than in
the other species, (except pexnatifidum) as pointed out by Agassiz («Rev. ot Ech.» p. 351). — The
number of pores included by the subanal fasciole is, as stated by Bell, one or two pairs, both cases

occurring almost equally frequently. In one case I have found the first ambulacral plate reaching

134 ECHINOIDEA. II.

within the fasciole to be the 7th (on the left side only); otherwise it is the 6th as found by Lovén
to be a general rule. (For an interesting exception to this rule, see sub Brissopsts, p. 163).

Regarding the development of the petals I may notice that the large pores in the anterior
series of the antero-lateral petals do not appear before the specimens have reached a length of ca.
15™, From the table given here it is further seen that no small variation may occur in this respect.

(The specimen of 14™™ is a little higher than usual).

Number of pores in the petals.

| Anterior petals | Posterior petals
ize || Anterior | Posterior Anterior | Posterior F

series | series series series

7 a | _
Se || Sil os" 4—5
10 — 6—8 3—4 5—6
TN Sends ore St || cee
|

I5— || 2—3 6—8 7-8 | 8

The tube-feet and spicules have been described by Perrier and Lovén and need not be
further described. I may only recall the curious subanal tube-feet, with the thick, clubshaped support-
ing rods of the filaments, described and figured by Lovén (On Pourtalesia. p. 48. Pl. VIII. 57); they
are characteristic of all the species of Echinocardium (as well as of Lovenia).

The pedicellariae have been partly described already by Sars, and later on by Perrier,
A. Agassiz and Koehler. In his «Beskrivelser og lagttagelser etc.» (1835) M. Sars mentions and
figures (Pl. IX. 23.a.—b.) a kind of pedicellaria which can only be the globiferous. Perrier (loc. cit.)
describes and figures a globiferous pedicellaria (wrongly regarding it as a kind of tridentate pedicel-
laria), and Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. Pl. XXV. 26) a tridentate pedicellaria. A closer examination has
been given by Koehler (loc. cit.), who describes four kinds of pedicellarize, evidently corresponding to
the globiferous, tridentate, rostrate and triphyllous. Besides these I also find, in young specimens
ophicephalous pedicellarie. A renewed examination of all these forms is necessary, especially as the
structure of the valves has not been hitherto described or figured in a detailed manner.

The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVII. Figs. 4, 10, 45) are said by Sars to be arranged in five
imperfect series, though somewhat disorderly. I find them, in accordance with Koehler, distributed
quite irregularly over the abactinal side, in very different numbers, sometimes quite wanting. The
valves (Pl. XVII. Figs. 4, 10) terminate in 6—8 long, slender teeth (not two, as stated by Perrier),
4—6 of which are at the point, two being placed lower down, one on each side. The latter are gene-
rally somewhat larger than those at the outer edge; sometimes there are two lateral teeth on one
side, and sometimes there is a tooth in the median line, just below the terminal slit. The blade is a
narrow, closed tube, with a small slit at the point. There is evidently no gland in the interior of the
blade; the edges of the basal part, as well as of the apophysis, are smooth. There is no neck; the

stalk has a small thickening at the upper and lower end. The size is rather variable, but generally

ECHINOIDEA. II. 135

they are rather large (ca. o'5™ length of head), and the thick, probably glandular,! dark pigmented
skin makes them very conspicuous objects.

The rostrate pedicellarize (Pl. XVII. Figs. 17, 40, 50) have very short valves, joining in the
outer half (or more) of the blade. In fact, it is rather difficult to recognize the rostrate type of pedi-
cellarize in this form, but a comparison with the corresponding form in the other species leaves no
doubt thereof. The edge is very finely serrate in the outer part of the blade, smooth in the lower
part, as is also the edge of the basal part. The form of the basal part is not always as shown in
the figure 4o, Pl. XVII, it is equally often without the narrowing towards the articular surface. The
neck is well developed, and is sometimes found somewhat retracted over the upper end of the stalk,
in a manner recalling the globiferous pedicellariz of Strongylocentrotus (comp. Part I. p. 163 Pl. XX.
Figs. 25, 29). There may be a small ring at the lower end of the stalk. They are rather small, scar-
cely more than ca. o02—o3"™ length of head. — It is probably this form which Koehler mentions
and figures under the name of «pédic. gemmiforme» (Sur les Echinocard. de la Méditerr. p. 184. Pl. 4.
12), though I have not found any pedicellariz resembling that figure very closely; probably it is not
really of Ach. flavescens.

The tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XVII. Figs. 11, 27, 31, 41) have broad, leafshaped valves, differing
somewhat in outline, as seen in the figures; in the small specimens the valves join in their whole
length, in larger ones the lower part is more or less narrowed, the edges being apart in about the
lower half of their length. The edge of the narrowed part is rather coarsely serrate, often with the
teeth placed in rather distant transverse series of 2—3 teeth in each; the edge of the outer part,
where the valves join is closely and finely serrate in the usual way. There may be some meshwork
at the bottom of the blade in the larger specimens. Sometimes four-valved specimens occur. The apo-
physis may be finely serrate at its upper end. The neck is well developed; the stalk may have a
rather distinct ring below for the fastening of the muscles. They reach a considerable size, up to ca.
r5™ length of head. — It is to be remarked that the stalk of the tridentate, rostrate and triphyllous
pedicellarize in the species of Achinocardium consists of slender rods, which are almost not at all con-
nected by transverse rods, except above and below; they differ herein from most other Spatangoids.
— The large tridentate pedicellaria figured by Koehler (Echinocard. de la Méditerr. Pl. 4.13) differs
considerably from those figured here; in fact, I have never seen any tridentate pedicellaria resembling
that figure in any of the numerous specimens of Lchinocard. flavescens which I have examined. On
the other hand I have found a quite similar form in a specimen received from Professor Koehler
under the name of Echinocard. pennatifidum from Tamaris s. Mer (Var). There seems to be some mis-
take here. (Comp. below, p. 142—4).

The ophicephalous pedicellarie (Pl. XVII. Figs. 7, 8) I have found only in young specimens (up
to a size of 18™™); they occur only on the actinal side in the naked posterior (bivial) ambulacra, and
may be very numerous. As is usual in Spatangoids they have no neck, the head resting directly on
the upper end of the stalk which is cupshaped widened; the stalk otherwise is composed of a rather
close, irregular meshwork. The valves are elongate, slender, widened towards the point, the basal part

1 Koehler (Rech. sur les Ech. des Cotes de Provence. p.130) however, states that no «substance muqueuse> is
found here.

6 ECHINOIDEA. II.

being very narrow. As is usual the blade is simply deepened, the edge thick and rather strongly ser-
rate; the lowermost arc has a small prolongation in the middle.

The triphyllous pedicellarie (Pl. XVI. Fig. 26) have only a few serrations in the edge at the
lower end of the blade, a remarkable difference from Ech. cordatum (comp. below, p. 146). It is evidently
this form which is figured by Koehler (Rech. s. 1. Ech. de Provence. Pl. VII. 57); but the valves are
there represented as being dentate along their whole edge, which is scarcely correct — at least I have
never seen them so.

This species does not generally reach a large size, in which respect it differs from Ech. penna-
tifidum. One of the specimens before me, however, has a length of 54™™ («M. Sars». 4—5 miles S. E.
of Sviné, Faroe Isl., 50-—60 fathoms). Sars (Norges Echinod.) describes the curious monstrosities which
occur among the specimens of this species (as also in Spat. purpureus and Lrissopsis lyrifera). 1 give
here some figures of such remarkable monstrosities (Pl. II. Figs. 2, 10). — On several of the specimens
from the «Ingolf» St.6 some Ostracods were found between the spines; (parasitic ?).

By the «<Ingolf» this species was taken at the following stations:

St. 6 (63° 43' Lat. N. 14° 34’ Long. W. go fathoms 7°oC. Bottom temp.) 28 specimens.

==) Ogre ga ye 7 = R= en =
— 87 (65°02’ — 23°56 — one ? = == 4) 6 =
— Cees) ey 138.) —=.,).5°9 ...— eat =
Se TSO Ney Ve IES 17 —) 3665 — Sa =

The geographical distribution is from the Coast of Northern Norway and South of Iceland to
the Mediterranean and the Azores; the bathymetrical distribution is ca. 5—150 fathoms.

Specimens from the Mediterranean and the Azores I have not seen; it seems, however, certain
that not all the Mediterranean specimens referred to Ech. flavescens are really this species. Thus
Gasco (Op. cit.) points out that in his specimens primary tubercles are found only along the borders
of the anterior ambulacrum. This recalls the figure ro, Pl.4 of Koehler (Echinocard. de la Méditerr.),
in which likewise no large tubercles occur except along the anterior ambulacrum. Adding hereto the
fact that pedicellariz such as those figured by Koehler (Op. cit. Pl. 4. Figs. 12,13) have not been met
with in any of the numerous specimens of flavescens examined, but in some specimens of a distinct species
described below. p. 142—4 (sub Echinocardium pennatifidum), it will probably not be held too hazardous,
when I venture to suggest that at least not all the specimens of «Ach. flavescens» from the Mediter-
ranean are really that species.

Ech, flavescens is further stated to occur on the American side of the Atlantic and at the Cape
of Good Hope, but these statements evidently need a renewed examination. I have myself not seen
any American specimens, but in view of the results obtained by the examination of the American
specimens of «Spatangus purpureus» and «Brissopsis lyrifera>,1 think it not too hardy if I venture to
say that the American Echinocardium flavescens might also well deserve a renewed careful examina-
tion in the light of the characters pointed out for the Echinocardium-species by Koehler and myself.
The description and figures in «Revis. of Echini» do not speak against the identity, but they are not
sufficiently detailed for proving definitely that the American form is really Ech. flavescens, and in the

description there is one point which is not in accordance with the favescens of our seas, viz. that the

ECHINOIDEA. II. 137

colour in the living animal is pinkish. As pointed out already by Diitben & Koren (Op. cit.) the
colour of the species in the Scandinavian seas is yellowish. To be sure, Forbes (Op. cit.) states the
species to be rose-coloured when alive; but I do not feel convinced that his Amphidetus roseus is
really synonymous with Ach. flavescens. Barrois (Catalogue des Crust. Podophthalm. et Echinodermes
rec. 4 Concarneau, p. 46) regards 4. vosews as a distinct species, but, as far I can see, the colour is the
only real distinguishing character hitherto pointed out, in spite of Barrois’ statement that it is dis-
tinguished from //avescens «par sa forme plus allongée et moins élevée; par sa taille moindre» —; the
form is too variable to be relied upon alone, and the size is evidently not to be stated to be smaller
upon the whole from the single specimen taken by Barrois. — In any case, when the rose-coloured
form comes to hand, it ought to be examined closely, also regarding the pedicellariz; till it is thus
proved to agree in all essential characters with ffavescens I cannot consider A. rosews as a mere syno-
nym of flavescens. Another thing is that the true #avescens is probably also included in the descrip-
tion given by Forbes, but in case two species are confounded, the name vosews must, of course, be
kept by the rose-coloured species.

The specimens from the Cape of Good Hope are certainly not favescens. I have examined in
the British Museum the specimens from the «Challenger» (St. 142) as well as some of the specimens
referred by Professor Bell to that species (Echinoidea of South Africa. p. 174), and further I have had
the great pleasure to receive from Dr. Gilchrist in Capetown three specimens of the same form;
(they were, evidently by a mistake, labelled Echinocardiwm australe). These specimens are certainly
very like the Ech. flavescens as regards their habitus, but a close examination shows them to be a
distinct species, which I shall describe here under the name of Echinocardium capense un. sp.

The shape of the test (Pl. IL Figs. 5, 6, 11) is a little different from that of /lavescens; it is
comparatively broader and lower, the apex and the part with the fasciole is especially almost saddle-
like depressed. The fasciole is comparatively smaller and more oval (not straight in front) than in
Havescens (Figs. 22—23). The apical system is like that of ffavescens, only the madreporite is perhaps
a little more elongate in the Cape species. The spines seem to be a little more slender than in /favesc-
ems, and especially it is a prominent feature that no large spines (and tubercles) are found along
the posterior side of the anterior petals; only in the largest specimen (26™™ length) I find 1—2 larger
tubercles at the lower end of these petals; likewise no large tubercles are found in the posterior
interambulacrum on the abactinal side.

The peristome is somewhat broader but shorter than in flavescens. As in that species the
labrum reaches the middle of the second adjoining ambulacral plates; its anterior border is almost
straight, very little prominent. — The subanal fasciole has, as in /ffavescens, distinct anal branches.
Two or three pairs of pores are included by the fasciole, whereas only 1—2 pairs are included by it
in flavescens. Since both species may thus have 2 pairs of pores included by the subanal fasciole, this
character might seem rather useless as a distinctive feature; but it is, really, not so useless. In the
Cape specimens with only two pairs of pores included, I find also the following ambulacral plate
transversely elongated, reaching to the fasciole; there are thus in this species four transversely elon-
gated ambulacral plates on each side of the fasciole, whereas in flavescens there are only three such

elongated plates; likewise it is a distinct feature that these plates, which reach within the fasciole, are

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV.

wb

18

ECHINOIDEA. II.

138

considerably narrower than in flavescens. — In the anterior petals the number of pores in the anterior
series is larger than in flavescens, viz. 6—7, whereas in favescens of a corresponding size there are
only 2—6, the number varying rather much. As the pore-bearing plates of the petals are rather large,
this difference is fairly conspicuous. In the posterior series of the anterior petals and in both series of
the posterior petals the number is the same in both species. The odd anterior ambulacrum narrows
conspicuously where the fasciole traverses it, which is not the case in flavescens; the number of plates
within the fasciole is smaller than in flavescens, specimens of equal size being compared (7 in capense,
ca. 10 in flavescens).

The tubefeet and their spicules do not present any distinct differences from //avescens; to be
sure, I have not seen any such large spicules, as are found in flavescens below the disk, but they are

not always met with in the latter species either, and they may well be found in larger specimens of

SOT
sce
a

Fig. 22. Apical area of Echinocardium capense; the Fig. 23. Apical area of Echinocardium flavescens ;
specimen 25mm in length. 5/r. the specimen 24mm jin length. 5/r.
capense. — The pedicellarize show partly some differences. The globiferous and ophicephalous pedi-

cellarize (the latter rather numerous on the naked actinal part of the bivial ambulacra) are like those
of flavescens. The rostrate (Pl. XVII. Figs. 6,16) are more slender, the outer, widened part shorter than
in flavescens; but small ones of the same form as those of flavescens (Pl. XVII. Fig. 9) also occur. The
tridentate pedicellarize (Pl. XVII. Figs. 5, 35, 39) have the edges of the blade more or less inrolled or
even coalesced in the lower part, the outer part being more spoon-shaped widened; in quite small
specimens the valves are simply leafshaped (Pl. XVII. Fig. 13). Some of the larger specimens (Pl. XVII.
Fig. 39) recall somewhat the larger rostrate pedicellarie. The largest tridentate pedicellariz seen
were only 073" (length of head); doubtless larger ones will occur in larger specimens, and probably
they will prove to differ yet more from those of flavescens. The triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XVI.
Fig. 12) differ from those of favescens in being serrate almost all round the edge of the blade, only

the point being smooth; the outline of the blade is also more rounded than in that species.

ECHINOIDEA. IL. 139

The differences pointed out here: in the shape of the test, the form and size of the internal
fasciole, the peristome, the petals, the pores included by the subanal fasciole, the tuberculation and
the pedicellariz seem to me to leave no doubt that the Cape specimens hitherto referred to Zech. fla-
vescens make a well characterized species, certainly nearly related to flavescens, but easily distinguished
from this species. The differences in the shape of the test and the form of the peristome, to be sure,
do not appear very clearly from the measurements given below of cafense and some equal-sized
specimens of /lavescens,; these characters also are probably rather variable, but in connection with the
other differences they get some value. The difference in the size of the internal fasciole is very clearly
seen in these measurements. It will be remarked that the measurements of the fasciole in /favescens
are not quite in accordance with those given by Koehler (Echinocard. de la Méditerr. p. 182); this
may be due perhaps to these measurements being taken from the interior borders of the fasciole or
to the specimens from the Mediterranean having upon the whole the internal fasciole somewhat
smaller than the specimens from the northern seas. Nevertheless the measurements given by Koehler

also show the fasciole to be distinctly larger than in capense.

Echinocardium capense. Echinocardium flavescens.
SS Sn ee TT Sea en SS ee | ET ae 7] = =
| | | Fasciole* | Peristome* | | | Fasciole* | Peristome*
Length | Breadth | Height |—- — | — | Length | Breadth Height |—— —
| | | Length | Breadth | Length | Breadth || | | Length | Breadth Length | Breadth
I i | z | <_s— : hes UL a |
ae 7 Sallis : a SS ee a ; i =e 7
ZOE 23:5 14 | 7Sialseede wl 2 SiS (27 ee 22; 5am |e L ) I2°5 8 3 45
2229 sind Near lina 2 5 | 2 | 18 rhe ees RIG Pee 4
19 | 16 | 10°5 | Gan nile 24 | 2 3:5 | Sao | 9 3535 Il'5 | 9 6 Hl 2°5 35
| i ie | \

* The fasciole is measured from the outer borders of the fasciole, the length of the peristome is taken from the
point of the labrum. All the measurements are in mm.

31. Echinocardium pennatifidum Norman.
Pl. II. Figs. 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17. Pl. XVI. Fig. 18. Pl. XVII. Figs. 1, 18, 20, 24—26, 28—29, 32—33, 42, 44.

Literature: Barrett: On two species of Echinodermata new to the Fauna of Great Britain.
Ann. Nat. Hist. 2.Ser. XIX. 1857. p. 33. Pl. VII. Fig. 2.a—e. («Amphidotus gibbosus» Ag.). — A. M. Nor-
man: Last Report on Dredging among the Shetland Islands. Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1868. p. 315. — Hodge:
Catalogue of the Echinodermata of Northumberland and Durham. Nat. Hist. Transact. Northumberl.
and Durham. IV. 1872. p.142. Pl. V. Figs.1—5. — Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 111, 351. Pl. XX.
Figs. 1—2(?) — F. Jeffr. Bell: On a species of Echinocardium from the Channel Islands. Ann. Nat.
Hist. 5 Ser. XVII. 1886. p.516—17. Catalogue Brit. Echinoderms. p. 170. Pl. XVI Fig.5. — Hoyle:
Revised List Brit. Echinoidea. p. 428. — Koehler: Echinides et Ophiures .... de l'«Hirondelle» (229).
Monaco. Fasc. XII. 1898. p. 24. Pl. HI. Fig. 7, IV. Figs.g—11. VII. Figs. 4o—42. Sur la présence en
Méditerranée de l’Asterias rubens et de !Echinocardium pennatifidum Norm. Zool. Anz. XXI. 1898.
p. 471—4. Sur les Echinocardium de la Méditerranée (231). Pl. 4. Fig. 15. — Stanley W. Kemp:
Echinoderms of Ballynakill and Bofin Harbours, Co. Galway, and of the Deep Water off the West

Coast of Ireland. Ann. Rep. Fish. Ireland. 1902—03. Pt. I]. App. VI (1905). p. 199.
18*

140 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Very little has to be added to the careful descriptions of the test of this species given by Bell
and, especially, by Koehler. — The labrum*is very short, not reaching beyond the middle of the first
adjoining ambulacral plates (Pl. I. Fig.15), a prominent difference from /avescens, in which species
it reaches the second ambulacral plate. (This feature is well seen in Koehler’s Fig. 11. Pl. IV (Op.
cit. Monaco) but not mentioned in the text; the division of the plate I.a.1 in two small plates, shown
in this figure, is an abnormal case). The subanal fasciole according to Bell (Catalogue. p.171) «seems
to include only one pair of plates, which are triangular in form and have a pair of pores at the outer
apex of each triangle», Koehler (Op. cit. Pl. IV. 10) figures two pairs of pores. Both cases may occur,
but whether there be one or two pairs of pores included, three ambulacral plates reach within the
fasciole, viz. Nr. 6—8; the last of them may reach scarcely beyond the fasciole — in that case only
one pair of pores is developed within the fasciole, or it may reach farther within — then also the
second pair of pores is developed. The periproct has a circle of larger plates all round, not only at
the lower edge as in the other species.

The tube-feet of the anterior ambulacrum within the fasciole are quite rudimentary, only very
few of them or even none at all with a few rosette-plates, — a rather conspicuous difference from
Jlavescens and capense, which have these tubefeet well developed. Accordingly the pores of these am-
bulacral plates are very small. The spicules are few and small, irregular rods; often none at all are
found in the tube-feet. The very large spicules below the disk, so characteristic of Ach. cordatum, are
not found here. The subanal tube-feet with the usual clubshaped rods. The rosette-plates, when pre-
sent, like those of favescens. — According to Koehler (Op. cit. Monaco. p. 26) the tubercles within
the internal fasciole «diminuent 4 mésure qu’on se rapproche de la ligne médiane». I find the inverted
case, that they increase in size towards the median line, and the same is seen in Koehler’s PI IV.
Fig.g and especially in the fig. 15 of «Sur les Echinocardium de la Méditerr.», so that there is evidently
alapsus calami here. Otherwise these larger tubercles continue along the anterior ambulacrum, beyond

the fasciole towards the ambitus and gradually pass into the larger tubercles of the actinal side. But

no larger tubercles are found scattered on the antero-lateral interambulacra on the abactinal side — a
very good character by which to distinguish this species from ffavescens. — In two of the specimens

before me the test is distinctly unequally developed, the right side projecting in front of the left.
(PEI Biss1s) 17):

The pedicellariz have received some attention, being partly very conspicuous. Thus the large,
strongly serrate, tridentate pedicellarize were seen by Norman and have given rise to the name fen-
natifidum. Hodge (Op. cit.) figures the valves of three forms of pedicellarize, viz. a large, slender form
of tridentate pedicellarice, a short, coarsely dentate (the rostrate) and a small, simply leafshaped form,
thought to be the «immature form» of the former. Koehler describes and figures (Pl. VIII. Figs. 4o
—42) three forms of pedicellarice, viz. a large tridentate pedicellaria with strongly serrate edges, a
smaller form, equally strongly serrate (rostrate?) and a third form which must certainly be a globiferous
pedicellaria. —I have found all these forms and further triphyllous pedicellarize, whereas ophicephalous
pedicellarize have not been met with in any of the specimens seen by me.

The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVII. Figs. 18,29) are not very copiously represented; only in

one of the 8 specimens examined have I found a single one on the abactinal side. In Professor

ECHINOIDEA. II. I4l

Koehler’s specimens they were evidently more numerous. The valves have a very wide basal part;
the blade is a short, narrow tube, with a small terminal opening surrounded by some short teeth,
5—6 on either side; the point is straightly cut. The difference between the globiferous pedicellariz of
this species and /favescens is very conspicuous.

The rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XVII. Figs. 20, 28, 32,44) are very richly developed. The simpler
forms are very like those of Spatangus, recalling somewhat, as pointed out by Koehler, the ophice-
phalous type of the “chinide, with which they have, however, nothing to do. The blade is in these
forms simply rounded, the narrowed part being very short, with quite smooth edges (Pl. XVII. Figs.
32,44); the edge of the widened part is finely serrate. Other specimens have a larger narrowed part,
the edge generally being provided with one or more very large teeth (PI. XVII. Figs. 20, 28). The
larger of these forms are like the tridentate pedicellariz, only shorter — indeed, it is impossible in
this case to draw a definite distinction between rostrate and tridentate pedicellarie. The larger ones
of these pedicellarize are ca. 1™™ (length of head); they have a well developed neck, and the stalk, as
usual in Echinocardium, consists of long, very loosely connected fibres. They occur both on the actinal
and abactinal side. — Also small specimens are found, which are more like the usual type of rostrate
pedicellariz.

The tridentate pedicellariz occur in two very distinct forms, viz. a large form (up to 2°5™™ length
of head) with strongly serrate edges (Pl. XVII. Figs. 1, 33), and a more slender form with narrow, leaf-
shaped valves, joining in most of their length; in the part where the valves join, the edges are very
finely serrate, in the lower part the serrations are coarser (Pl. XVII. Figs. 25, 26, 42); in some specimens
the valves are more slender and the serrations of the lower part larger (Pl. XVII. Fig. 24); this form
evidently corresponds to the Pl. VIII. 4o of Koehler. Otherwise all transitional forms are found be-
tween these two forms. The basal part is very narrow. Fourvalved specimens occur. This form, which
has already been figured by Hodge (Op. cit.) does not reach the size of the first form, it scarcely
exceeds 1°5™" length of head. — The triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XVI. Fig. 18) are rather elongate,
with the whole edge, except the very point, finely serrate; the serrations increase a little towards the
point of the blade.

On the younger stages of this species I cannot give much information, having seen besides
larger specimens only a specimen of 9™™ length and one of 18™™ length. In the latter the genital
pores have appeared, not in the former. The petals are distinct already in the specimen of 9™™, viz.
4 double pores in the anterior, ro in the posterior series of the anterior petals, g in both series of
the posterior petals. In the specimen of 18™™ the anterior series in the anterior petals is less developed,
having only one or two small double pores.

This species is known from the British Seas, from the Feeroe Islands to the Bay of Biscay.
From the Danish Seas it was hitherto unknown, but recently Dr. A. C. Johansen has taken a
specimen (the above mentioned small one of 9™™) in 35 M. off Thyborén («Thor». IV. 1905). Evidently
the species is rare in our seas, otherwise it would scarcely have been overlooked. — By the «Ingolf»
it was not taken, but I have myself dredged some specimens at the Faroe Islands in ca. 80—150

fathoms. (16 Miles W. of Nolsd, and 13 Miles W. of «Munken», a small rock at the South end of

ECHINOIDEA. I1.

142

Suderé). The bathymetrical distribution of the species is, as far as hitherto known, from shallow water
to ca. 150 fathoms.

Ech. pennatifidum is further stated to occur in the Mediterranean and at the American Coasts of
the Atlantic (Florida and West-Indies). The presence of the species in the Mediterranean at Tamaris-
sur-Mer! was announced by Professor Koehler, who has done me the very great service to send
me one of these specimens. A close examination thereof, however, shows that this specimen differs in
several respects considerably from fexnatifidum. — The labrum reaches to the second adjoining ambu-
lacral plates as in flavescens, whereas in pennatifidum it ends off the middle, or (in the largest speci-
men examined) even at the anterior end of the first ambulacral plate. Four ambulacral plates reach
within the subanal fasciole, which accordingly includes three pairs of pores; in fennatifidum three
plates reach within the fasciole, with two or only one pair of pores. The periproct is like that of
flavescens, very different from that of pexnatifidum. The anal opening is rather eccentric, lying near
the upper edge, surrounded by small, irregular plates. The lower part of the anal area is bordered by
a series of large, regular plates, which diminish in size towards the upper edge; they are closely
covered by a fine granulation. The anal fasciole is in direct connection with the subanal fasciole,
whereas in fennatifidum it is separated from the latter by a rather broad band of coarser tubercles,
as is well seen in Koehler’s Fig. 10. Pl. [V (Monaco); in young specimens this is, however, not the
case, the granulation of the two fascioles uniting in the median line.

The number of pores in the petals differs considerably from what is found in penxnatifidum of
a corresponding size. I give here the measurements of the test and the number of pores in the petals
of this specimen, and, for comparison, of specimens of pennatifidwm and flavescens of a correspon-

ding size.

Nonbe: of pone

| Length Breadth | Height __ Anterior petals | Posterior petals

| Anterior Posterior fe Anterior | Posterior

| || series series series series

I rs
- jc

Specimen from Tamaris .. | 50mm 45mm 32mm 9 I3—I4 || 10 g—I10
Ech. pennatifidum........ | 52 | 52 31 4 I2—I15 | 13—14 | 13—14
ECHs. JLAVESCERS (oc wnins ee | 55 | 49— | 32— 9 13—14 | ro —11 IO—I2

The internal fasciole seems to be larger than in fennatifidum (— unfortunately the anterior
part of the test is damaged, so that I cannot state that exactly —); in any case it is more remote
posteriorly from the apical system than in the specimen of 52™™ length, of which the above measure-
ments are given — in the latter the fasciole passes over the second plate in the posterior interambu-
lacrum, in the Mediterranean specimen it passes over the 4th—sth plate of the posterior interambula-
crum. The greatest width of the fasciole is 1o™™ in the said specimen of pennatifidum, 13™™ in the
Mediterranean specimen; it is further to be remarked that one or two large tubefeet of the posterior
series of the anterior petals are within the fasciole, which is not the case in either pennatifidum or

1 Sur la présence, en Méditerranée, de l’Asteras rubens Linné et de I'Echinocardium pennatifidum Norman. Zool.
Anzeiger. XXI. Nr. 567. 1898.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 143

flavescens. — The tubefeet of the odd anterior ambulacrum seem to be very well developed. The pedi-
cellarize differ very essentially from those of pennatifidum; they are, indeed, quite like those of /lave-
scens, only the rostrate pedicellariz are a little more slender than in that species (Pl. XVII. Figs.
36, 46), and I find here the form of tridentate pedicellarie figured by Koehler (Sur les Echinocard.
de la Méditerr. Pl. 4.13) as characteristic of /favescens, a form which I have, otherwise, not found in
that species (Pl. XVII. Fig. 14, comp. above p. 135). Ophicephalous pedicellariz were not found. — The
spicules do not present peculiar features; I do not find any large spicules just below the disk.

From what is here pointed out I think it is proved beyond doubt that this specimen is not
pennatijidum, and the presence of. that species in the Mediterranean thus remains problematic, no
other instances of its occurring there being recorded, as far as I know.

From the Zoological Station at Naples I have received under the name of Ech. mediterraneum
two (smaller) specimens, which evidently belong to the same species as the above described specimen
from Tamaris. In one of them the labrum does not reach beyond the first adjoining ambulacral plates,
in both of them only two pairs of pores are enclosed by the subanal fasciole. Otherwise they agree with
the specimen from Tamaris. In the larger of them (34™™ in length) one large tubefoot of the anterior
petals (posterior series) is developed within the fasciole, in the smaller specimen (32™" in length) no
such larger tubefeet are as yet developed within the internal fasciole. — There is a faint violet tint
seen on the abactinal spines.

After all I think it must be admitted that this form must be regarded as a separate species,
which I propose to name Echinocardium intermedium n. sp.‘ It is nearly related to Ech. flavescens,
and, especially, Ach. capense, whereas it is not more nearly related to Ech. pennatifidum or mediterraneum,
to which two species the specimens known to me have wrongly been referred. It differs from /avescens
mainly in having no larger tubercles on the lateral and posterior interambulacra on the abactinal
side, and those of the anterior interambulacra are much smaller than in //avescews. Further the
rostrate and large tridentate pedicellarize differ not inconsiderably from those of //avescens. For the
larger specimens it may perhaps prove a constant feature that the large tubefeet of the anterior petals,
posterior series, continue within the fasciole, which is not the case even in the largest specimens of
flavescens. If other constant characters are to be found distinguishing it from favescens cannot be stated
from the present scarce material. From £ch. cafense it is distinguished mainly by its much larger
internal fasciole, and the shape of the test which is much more like /favescens, without the almost
saddlelike depression of the apex, so characteristic of cafense. Regarding the pedicellariz it is to be
remarked that their triphyllous pedicellariz differ rather considerably, being as in /laveycens in the
Mediterranean species, with only a few serrations at the lower end of the edge of the blade, whereas
in capense they are serrate almost along the whole edge of the blade. Ophicephaious pedicellariz are
known only from cafense, while globiferous and large tridentate pedicellarie are not known from
this latter species. A comparison of the number of pores in the petals cannot be made, as only small

specimens of capense have beeu examined, and only larger specimens of ctermedium.

t Possibly it will prove identical with the 4. vosews Forbes; in that case this name will, of course, have to be re-
tained and the name ¢zfermedium will be dropped as a synonym thereof. For the present it is, however, necessary to give
the species a new name, since it is still uncertain which species is really the 4. voseus Forbes.

144 ECHINOIDEA. II.

To this species evidently belongs the specimen figured by Koehler (Sur les Echinocardium
de la Méditerranée. Pl. 4. 10) as well as that figured by Gasco (Op. cit.), and it may perhaps be allowed
to suggest that in several other instances the two species flavescens and intermedium have been con-
founded. The existence of flavescens in the Mediterranean is proved by Figs. 4 and 5 of the paper
quoted by Koehler which are certainly true /avescens and have been made after specimens from the
Mediterranean, as expressly stated by Professor Koehler in a letter to me.

The American specimens referred to Ech. pennatifidum will probably be found not to belong
to that species either. From the description in the «Rev. of Echini» p.351 it appears that the Ameri-
can form differs from pennatifidum in several regards. The periproct? is said to be somewhat pear-
shaped; in pennatifidum it is more or less transversely elongate. The internal fasciole is «very elong-
ated, elliptical, including an extremely narrow space»; in fennatifidum it is more angular, as is very
well seen in Koehler’s Fig.9. Pl. IV. (Monaco). The apex is «anterior, and placed at a distance of
about one fourth the longitudinal diameter of the test from the anterior extremity, thus differing
strikingly from either E. flavescens or E. cordatum, in which the junction of the ambulacra is either
almost central or eccentric posteriorly»; in pennatifidwm the apical system is, however, not anterior
but central or even a little eccentric posteriorly. «The posterior ambulacra are much shorter than in
E. flavescens». To illustrate this feature I give here some measurements; they show clearly that the
posterior petals (which is evidently the meaning) are distinctly longer in pennatifidum than in flavesc-

ens, the reverse case to what is found is Agassiz’ specimens.

Ech. pennatifidum. Ech. flavescens.
| Posterior petals | | Posterior petals
Hength of (|= a Length of | ste.
| = | | 7
test resets | Somme | fest | tang | SEE,
————— Ee -E —— L —
52mm | 20 mm 13—I15 | 55mm | 18mm | Io—I2
30 — | io — | I1—12 | 30 — | 8 — | 7—8
18 — | 55— | lo—12 | 19 — 5— | 6—7

Also the form of the test seems to be different, judging from the figures given in the «Re
vision» (Pl. XX. 1), the posterior end being more pointed in the American form, whereas in the Euro-
pean form it is rounded. Unfortunately nothing is known of the labrum, the number of ambulacral
plates reaching within the subanal fasciole, the number of pores in the petals, the pedicellariz and
spicules. But the differences pointed out here seem scarcely to leave any doubt that the American
specimens referred by Agassiz to Ech. pennatifidum are really a distinct species; if that proves to
be so, this species must keep the name Zch. levigaster A. Ag., by which it was first described (unless
it turns out to be identical with the pliocene Zch. orthonotus Conrad). In any case it cannot be re-
garded as an established fact that Zech. pennatifidum occurs in the American waters, before it has been
stated by a renewed careful examination that the American specimens really belong to this species.

« Strictly speaking it is said of the anal opening, but I suppose I am not mistaken in taking it to mean the whole
anal area.

ECHINOIDEA. II.

32. Echinocardium cordatum (Penn.).
Pl. XVI. Fig. 21. Pl. XVII. Figs. 15, 2I—23, 30, 34, 37—38, 43, 48—49.
Principal Synonyms: Spatangus arcuarius Lank.
Echinocardium Sebe Gray.
Amphidetus cordatus Forbes, ete.
— Riirtzet Gir.
Principal literature: Pennant: British Zoology. 1777. IV. p. 69. Pl. XXXIV. Fig. 75. — Leske:
Additamenta ad Kleinii Nat. Disp. Echinod. p. 230. Tab. XXIV.c.d.e. Tab. XXXVIII. 5. — Abildgaard:

Zoologia Danica. III. p. 17. Tab. XCI. («Spat. flavescens» — non Mill.) — Lamarck: Animaux sans
vertébres. 1816. III. p. 32. — Forbes: British Starfishes. p. 190. — Dittben & Koren: Skandin. Echi-
nodermer. p. 285. — Agassiz & Desor: Catalogue raisonné. p. 117. Pl. XVI.8. — Gray: Catalogue

of recent Echinida. p. 43. — Joh. Miiller: Bau d. Echinodermen. p. 29. Taf. III. Fig. 3—5. — Desor:
Synopsis des Echinides fossiles. p. 407. Pl. XLII. Fig. 4—5. — Sars: Norges Ech. p.97. — Agassiz:
Revision of Echini. p. 109, 349. Pl. XIX. 1o—17, XX. 5—7, XXV. 27—28. — Lovén: Etudes s. 1. Echi-
noidées. Pl. I. 2—7, III. 38, XII. 107, XXXIX. 222—226. On Pourtalesia. Pl. VIII. 57—58, XI. 120—126,
XII. 148. — Koehler: Rech. s. les Echinides d. cétes de Provence. p. 130.—(230) p.473. — Bell: Cat.
Brit. Echinoderms. p. 169. Pl. XVI. 1-4. — Hoyle: Revised List Brit. Echinoidea. p. 427. — Grieg:
Nordlige Norges Echinodermer. p. 33. — Déderlein: Arktische Seeigel. Fauna arctica. IV. p. 384. —
Stanley W. Kemp: Echinoderms of Ballynakill .... Ann. Rep. Fish. Ireland. 1902—3. Pt. II. App. VI.
(1995) p. 182.

For other literary references I may refer to the «Revision of Echini» and to Professor Bell’s
Catalogue.

This species has been so often described and is so well known that I find very little to re-
mark except on the pedicellarize and the postlarval development. — Regarding structural features of
the test it may be noticed that the labrum reaches the second adjoining ambulacral plates, viz. a
narrow forward prolongation of the latter. Three or four ambulacral plates reach within the subanal
fasciole, two or three pairs of pores being included (— in the specimens from the Danish Seas there
are, almost without any exception, only two pairs of pores included —). The periproct varies greatly
in shape (Figs. 24.@—c); generally it is trausverse-oval, but it may also be found more or less elongate,
sometimes (in specimens from Roscoff) even very elongate and narrow, like that of Ech. mediterra-
neum. It may also be pointed out that in the anterior interambulacra there are several larger tubercles
scattered on the 2—3 vertical plates just beyond the ambitus; also in the lateral interambulacra there
are a few larger tubercles on a pair of the plates just above the ambitus, but only in the anterior
series, at the edge of the ambulacrum. This feature, which is distinct already in specimens of ca. 15™™
length, is one more good distinguishing character from mediterranewm, in which species such larger
tubercles are not found beyond the ambitus.

The spicules, especially those very peculiar large ones below the disk of the tube-feet have
been carefully described and figured by Lovén; I have nothing to add. — The pedicellariz, on the

other hand, need a more close examination, a tridentate pedicellaria alone having been figured by

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. ; 19

146 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Agassiz (Rev. of Ech. Pl. XXV.27—28). Globiferous, rostrate, tridentate and triphyllous pedicellariz
have been found; ophicephalous ones do not seem to occur.

The globiferous pedicellarie (Pl. XVII. Figs. 37, 49) are very conspicuous, with a thick, brownish
head; the valves are very short, with a very large basal part and a short, tubeshaped blade, which
has 5—6 teeth along each side of the elongate terminal opening and often an outer median one. The
stalk has a whorl of free projecting rods at its lower end; the upper end is attenuated. These pedi-
cellarize I have found only on the actinal side, and only in specimens from the Mediterranean, never
in any specimen from the northern seas. In some specimens from Tamaris (Var), which Professor
Koehler has most kindly lent me for examination I find them thus represented: in one specimen
(the largest) they are very numerous and well developed; in four specimens there are very few of
them, at the mouth or on the anal area, and they are small, the basal part being not very large and

the whorl on the stalk little developed; in two specimens I find no globiferous pedicellariz at all —

Fig. 24, a—c. Anal and subanal region of Echinocardium cordatum: a speci-
men from Skagerrak; 4 from Roscoff; ¢ from Naples.

in these latter specimens, on the other hand, the tridentate pedicellaria seem comparatively more
richly developed than usually.

The rostrate pedicellarize (Pl. XVII. Figs. 15, 21, 38) are rather like those of flavescens, only
still more like tridentate pedicellariz; the blade generally is somewhat pointed, and may have a pro-
minent tooth in the point. In some specimens from the Mediterranean I find such with the blade
much narrower (Pl. XVII. Fig. 34), recalling very much those of Sfatangus. — The tridentate pedi-
cellarie (Pl. XVII. Figs. 22, 23, 30, 43, 48) have leafshaped valves, in the smalier ones joining with their
whole edge; in the larger forms the blade is more or less narrowed in the lower part, the edge being
irregularly serrate; there is generally some meshwork in the bottom of the blade in these larger pedi-
cellariz. In the specimens from Tamaris I find the tridentate pedicellarie unusually broad (Pl. XVII’
Fig. 30). The largest ones seen were ca. 1°5™", length of head. — The triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XVI.
Fig. 21) are very peculiar; in the outer part there is a series of broad teeth inside along the edge; the
serrations pass a little way up together with these teeth. In about the outer half of the blade the edge
is smooth. — Ophicephalous pedicellariz unknown.

This species, which was not taken by the «Ingolf», is very common in the Danish Seas, and
along the Atlantic coasts of Europe, from Northern Norway to the Mediterranean. It is not known

from the Faroe-Islands or Iceland. From the American side of the Atlantic it is recorded from

ECHINOIDEA. II. 147

North Carolina to Bahia. The bathymetrical distribution is rather small, from shallow water to 85
fathoms.

The specimens from the Kattegat are rather small, evidently the species reaches a more con-
siderable size at the Atlantic Coasts. Forbes (Op. cit.) thus mentions a specimen of 3 inches diameter,
and from the Biological Laboratory of Roscoff I have received specimens of a little over 60™™ length.

The specimens from the Mediterranean differ from the northern specimens in the peculiar
feature that they alone appear to have globiferous pedicellarie, and even sometimes very richly de-
veloped. Further they have four ambulacral plates reaching within the subanal fasciole, whereas gene-
rally only three reach within the fasciole in the northern specimens. Otherwise I cannot see any reli-
able differences, so that I must regard them as belonging to the same species; at most the Mediter-
ranean form can be made a separate variety of Lch. cordatum.

The American specimens were originally described as a distinct species, Amphidetus Kiirtzii
Girard,! which was later on by Agassiz («Revis. of Echini») made a synonym of Ech. cordatum
After a careful comparison of a single specimen from the Coast of North Carolina with equal-sized
European specimens of cordatum, I must fully join Professor Agassiz in regarding the American form
as identical with the European “ch. cordatum. In all the more important structural features of the
test they are in complete accordance (in the specimen before me there are 2 pairs of pores within
the subanal fasciole, but the ninth ambulacral plate also reaches within the fasciole, so that specimens
with three pairs of pores within the fasciole will probably be met with). Regarding the shape of the
test the specimen in hand is a little broader than is generally the case in the European specimens,
and also the front end is perhaps a little more perpendicular; but it is, of course, impossible to judge
of the real value of these apparently trifling differences from a single specimen alone. It may be
remarked that the very few pedicellarize seen, viz. triphyllous, tridentate and rostrate (but no globi-
ferous) are also in accordance with those of the European specimens.

Agassiz («Revision of Echini». p. 350. Pl. XIX. 10—15) describes and figures young stages of
this species of 63—7:97 length. From the Kattegat I have specimens of all sizes from such as are
just metamorphosed and only o5™™ long. Also the larva I have described from here3; it occurs
in great numbers, making an essential portion of the Plankton in the months of June—July. No other
species of Lchinocardium occurring in the inner parts of the Kattegat, the identification of the young
specimens is beyond doubt. I am thus able to give a rather full account of the postlarval development
of this species, which may prove of some interest. Also the comparison with the development of Lrzs-
aster fragilis, described above p. 111—114, Pl. XIII, is certainly not without interest.

The youngest stages I find to agree very closely with those of Lech. flavescens figured by

Lovén (On Pourtalesia. Pl. XV). The development of the apical system follows much the same course

t Account of a new species of Spatangidze from’the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat.
Hist. 1852. Vol. IV. p. 213.

2 From «Thor» St. 112. 1905 (56° 33° Lat. N. 1° 47° Long. E. 89 M.) there are immense numbers of quite young
Echinocardium, which quite agree with those of Ech. cordatum from the Kattegat. I do not, however, venture to decide,
whether they belong to Zch. cordatum or flavescens, both of these species occurring there. In none of them have pedicel-
larize appeared as yet.

3 Die Echinodermenlarven der Plankton-Expedition. Ergebn. d. Plankton-Exp. d. Humboldt-Stiftung. Bd. II. J. 1898.
p. 102. Taf. IX. 5—11.

Ig”

148 ECHINOIDEA. II.

as in flavescens, where it has been worked out so very accurately by Lovén; itis, however, to be noticed
that the two left genital plates and the right posterior one are generally distinctly separated from
the left anterior (with the madreporite). The genital pores I have not found in specimens smaller than
14™™ length (in flavescens Lovén has found them already at a size of 10°5™™.) — The labrum only
reaches a little over the middle of the 1. adjoining ambulacral plates in specimens up to ca. 15™™
length. In a specimen of 2™™ length it reaches the 2. ambulacral plate on the right side, and from a
size of ca. 3™™ it reaches the 2. ambulacral plate on both sides as in the grown specimens. The regular
pentagonal form of the peristome begins to alter at a size of ca. 3™™; in specimens of 4™™ length the
labrum is rather prominent, reaching the edge of the mouth-opening. The definitive form of the peri-
stome is found in specimens of ca. 10™™ length. — The front ambulacrum is distinctly sunken already
in specimens of 2—3™™ length; in yet smaller specimens the outline of the front end is almost straight,
like what is seen in the figures 172 and 173 of Lovén. The tube-feet of the anterior ambulacrum
appear very early, as found by Lovén in /lavescens, but they are in no way especially large in the
young specimens, which fact is not in accordance with the view of Agassiz that very large suckers
are an embryonic feature (comp. above p.96 sub Aéropszs rostrata). The large spicules of the frontal
tubefeet are distinct already in specimens of 3™™ length. The paired petals, as usual, are considerably
later in their development than the anterior ambulacrum. Single pores begin to appear in the poste-
rior series of the anterior petals at a size of ca. 2°5™™; at ca. 3™™ they begin to appear in the posterior
petals, both series, and a little later (at ca. 4™™ length) they begin to appear in the anterior series of
the anterior petals, the pores of the posterior series at the same time beginning to elongate trans-
versely. At a size of scarcely 5™™ I find the pores (6—7 in number) of the posterior series of the ante-
rior petals double, this condition of the pores evidently being reached through the formation of a trans-
verse ridge over the elongated single primary pore. At a size of ca. 5°5™™ the petals are fully formed,
only the number of the double pores being smaller than in the grown specimens, viz. in the anterior
petals 3—4 in the anterior, 7—8 in the posterior series, and in the posterior petals 6 in the anterior,
7 in the posterior series.

The fascioles make their appearance very early. At a size of only o7—o8™™ the subanal fasc-
iole is distinct, consisting to begin with of only a single circle of clavule. The spines within the
fasciole are comparatively long, as long as the test, pointing directly backwards, which gives to these
small specimens a characteristic appearance. The anal branches from the subanal fasciole appear at
a size of ca. 295". The inner fasciole is later in its appearance than the subanal fasciole, not begin-
ning to form until the animal has reached a size of ca. 1°5™™. It likewise consists at first only of a
single circle of clavulee. — The development of the subanal area also affords some features of interest.
In quite small specimens only the 6th ambulacral plate of the series I.a. and V.b. reaches within the
fasciole; at a size of ca. 2'5™" the 7th plate begins to expand towards the fasciole and by and by it
reaches within. From a size of ca. 8™™ the 8th plate begins to expand in the same manner. Only at
a size of 14—15™" does the first pair of pores appear within the fasciole; the second pair (in the 8th
plates) I have not found developed at a smaller size than 18™™,

Pedicellarize do not appear till rather late, at a size of ca. 2™™, the triphyllous being the first

to appear; they show the structure so characteristic for the species already from their first appearance.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 149

The spheeridiz, on the contrary, are very early developed, viz. the first 5 of them. Already in the
youngest specimens of only o5™, where remnants of the larval skeleton are still quite distinct within
the abactinal skeleton, they have appeared.

-In the smallest specimens, of only o5™", there are already bottom-particles in the intestine,
which shows that they begin the diet of the grown specimens as soon as their pelagic life has
come to end.

Very nearly related to Ech. cordatum is Ech. australe Gray, so nearly, indeed, that it may be
doubted, whether they are not identical. Agassiz, though recognizing its close affinity to ch. cor-
datum, («Revision of Echini» p. 580) states that «specimens of this species are readily distinguished
from the Atlantic E. cordatum ..... Seen in profile the test rises somewhat more gradually from the
anterior extremity towards the apical system; the abactinal pole is more central, and the anal system
is elliptical, slightly transverse, instead of being longitudinal, as in E. cordatum. The bare abac-
tinal posterior ambulacral areas extend to the ambitus, remaining of the same width, instead of be-
coming narrow as in E. cordatum; the pores of the poriferous zones are more distant than in E. cor-
datum». — In the «Challenger»-Echinoidea (p. 174) these characters are stated to be quite constant in
the specimens examined, but Professor Agassiz adds that they «seem very slight ground for main-
taining the specific distinctness of the Pacific and the Atlantic representatives of the genus, and I
should expect that additional material will prove this species to be identical with the European species».
— This suggestion is probably quite correct. I have examined several specimens from Australia, Japan
and (one) from the Cape, and I find them to agree with cordatum in all essential features: the labrum,
the number of pores included within the subanal fasciole, the shape of the anal area (as shown above
it isof rather variable form in cordatum, so that no reliable difference is to be found herein), the form
and size of the petals as well as the number of their pores (— the difference in the posterior petals
said to exist by Agassiz I am quite unable to see —), the arrangement of the pores of the odd
anterior ambulacrum in double series, the position of the apical system (— I do not find it more cen-
tral in azstrale than in cordatwm —), the larger tubercles in the anterior interambulacra — in short, I
find them to agree completely in all essential features, so that they are, indeed, contrary to the origi-
nal statement of Agassiz, extremely difficult to distinguish. To be sure, I find the “ch. australe
somewhat lower at the anterior end, thus rising «somewhat more gradually from the anterior extremity
towards the apical system», and perhaps also the pores of the anterior ambulacrum do not become
arranged in double series so early as in cordatum.! These, however, are so inconsiderable differences
that I doubt, whether it would be possible to distinguish with certainty tests of the two «species», if
they were put together and the localities of the specimens not marked. In the pedicellarie I do not
find any reliable differences — but it is to be remarked that I have not found any globiferous pedi-
cellarize in australe; upon the whole pedicellarize seem to be very scarce in this form. Regarding the
spicules I find the large rods below the terminal disk to be generally somewhat smaller than in cor-

datum; on the other hand the spicules of the frontal tubefeet are generally somewhat larger and

1 Hutton (Catalogue of the Echinodermata of New Zealand. 1872. p. 14) says of Amphidetus zealandicus (= Ech.
australe) that it has four genital pores on each side; this is, of course, a mistake, caused by the ocular pores having been
taken to be genital pores.

150 ECHINOIDEA. Ii.

more numerous than in cordatuwm. It may be remarked that australe reaches the same considerable
size as cordatum. A specimen of 74™™ length, from Victoria, is in the Museum of Copenhagen. — After
all, the conclusion seems inevitable that Ech. australe is really synonymous with Ech. cordatum, which
species thus has an almost cosmopolitan distribution; only along the Pacific Coast of America it does
not seem to occur.

In the «Challenger»-Echinoidea (p. 174) Zech. australe is recorded from a depth of no less than
2675 fathoms (St. 234), which seems, indeed, very curious, the species being otherwise a littoral form
of rather small bathymetrical distribution. I have examined the specimens from this station in the
British Museum, and I must agree that they really seem to be identical with the littoral specimens.
Perhaps the actinostome is a little more central than in the littoral specimens, but otherwise they
seem to agree in all essential points. That the pores of the odd ambulacrum are as yet only placed
in a single series does not give any distinguishing character, since the same is the case in cordatum
and australe of a similar size (the largest of the deep-sea specimens is only 15™™ with the genital pores
just about to appear). Of pedicellarize only a small tridentate and some triphyllous were found; they
agree with australe, and the same is the case with tubefeet and spicules. Since, however, only small
specimens are represented, I think it safer to regard it as not beyond doubt that these deep-sea spe-
cimens are really the same species as the littoral australe. And upon the whole it might well be
thought possible that by a very careful examination of a large material of this form from the different
localities in the Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific, characters might be found by which it might be divided
into different recognisable species. In that case this group might well be regarded as a distinct genus,
characterized by its deep anterior ambulacrum, with the pores arranged in double series. Also the
peculiar triphyllous pedicellarize would then form one of the generic characters. For the present, how-
ever, it seems that this group forms really only one species — the only littoral species of Echinoidea
hitherto known with such extensive, almost cosmopolitan distribution. (The Dzadema saxatile and
Echinus norvegicus hitherto regarded as almost cosmopolitan are really not so widely distributed, as I
have shown).

A few remarks may here also be given of the last of the &chimocardiwm-species hitherto known,
the Ech. mediterraneum Forbes. A very careful description has been given of this species by Koehler
(Sur les Echinocardium de la Méditerr. p. 175. Pl. 4.1—4, 14), but a few points of some importance
may still be added. The labrum reaches the second adjoining ambulacral plates, which send a narrow
forward prolongation to meet its corners. Three pairs of plates (one or two pairs of pores) are included
by the subanal fasciole. The pores of the odd anterior ambulacrum are small and distant; the plates
included by the internal fasciole are very narrow. The fasciole goes rather far behind the apical system,
passing over the 5—6th plates of the odd interambulacrum in a specimen of 28™™ length. These inter-
ambulacral plates within the fasciole are very narrow, especially those traversed by the fasciole, and there
is a rather abrupt widening of the plates just outside the fasciole (Fig. 25). It may also be expressly
stated that no larger tubercles are found above the ambitus in the anterior interambulacra. A curious
feature, which I have not seen in any of the other species of this genus, is that the clavulz end in
two small lobes of skin, the point otherwise being almost not widened (PI. XVII. Fig. 51). The pedi-

' Ingolf-Echinoidea. Part I. Siam-Echinoidea. Part I.

ECHINOIDEA. II. I5I

cellarize were hitherto very insufficiently known; a few figures are given in «Revision of Echini
Pl. XXV. 29—30 and Pl. XXVI. 19, and Koehler (Op. cit. Pl. 4.14) gives a figure of one kind of pedi-
cellarize. I have found globiferous, rostrate, tridentate and triphyllous pedicellarice, but no ophicephalous.
The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVII. Figs. 12, 47) are rather like those of cordatum, only the blade
is generally more elongate (though not always so elon-
gate as in the figured valve), and the basal part is nar-
rower. 3—4 teeth are found on either side of the term-
inal opening, and there may be one in the middle of
the outer edge; the terminal opening may sometimes
be quite covered by the teeth. As is usual the valves
are covered by a thick skin (Pl. XVII. Fig. 47); the stalk
is rather thick and compact, knotted, with a distinct
thickening above and below, the latter without free
projecting rods. —- The Fig. 19. Pl. XXVI of «Revision
of Echini», in the explanation of plates termed an «open-
headed actinal» pedicellaria, evidently represents the
valve of a globiferous pedicellaria. — The rostrate pedi-
cellariz are rather large and very characteristic (Pl. XVII.

Figs. 3, 52); the valves are coarsely dentate along the

side edges, the point, which is more or less rounded,
finely serrate. They reach a rather considerable size, Fig. 25. Apical area of Echinocardium mediterraneum
ca. I—1-2™ length of head. The Fig. 29, Pl. XXV of ve
«Rev. of Ech.» («long-headed» pedicellaria), as well as the Pl. 4. Fig. 14 (pedicellaire gemmiforme) of
Koehler (Op. cit.) evidently represent this form. Anything nearly resembling the Pl. XXV. Fig. 30 of
‘Rev. of Ech.» I have not seen.

The tridentate pedicellarice occur in two, not very sharply distinguishable forms; the one
(Pl. XVII. Fig. 2) has slender, leafshaped valves, the larger ones joining only in the outer half; the
lower part is more or less coarsely serrate, the basal part rather narrow. The other form (Pl. XVII.
Fig. 19) has short valves, generally a little inrolled in the lower part, and sometimes ending in a dis-
tinct tooth. This form to some extent recalls the form, which I have termed rostrate pedicellaria in
Ech, flavescens — and it is, indeed, rather difficult to determine with certainty to which kind it ought
really to be reckoned, the rostrate pedicellarize being, as repeatedly pointed out, essentially a special
form of tridentate pedicellariz. — The triphyllous pedicellarize (Pl. XVI. Fig. 16) are rather like those
of cordatum, with similar teeth inside along the edge of the blade. — Spicules seem to be almost
wholly wanting in the tubefeet, and no large spicules are found below the disk of the frontal tubefeet

which are otherwise well developed and like those of cordatewm.

After the revision of the species of Echinocardium given here it will perhaps not be found

useless to give an analytical table of all the species hitherto recognized with certainty.

152 ECHINOIDEA. II.
)

Analytical table of the Echinocardium species.

1. Anterior ambulacrum deepened .............66 2222 eee eee eee tetas 2,
— — not deepened, flush with the test................... .
2, The furrow continuing to the apical system; the pores within the internal
fasciole in close, double series. Larger tubercles are found scattered on the
Ae : { cordatum.
anterior interambulacra above the ambitus .......-....---2e-+seeee sees eee
: , : : \ (australe).
The furrow ending abruptly at the anterior end of the internal fasciole;
the pores within this fasciole distant and in single series. No larger tubercles
abovertherambitiissseetme ee seme nce ee aki eed tee ee mediterraneum.
3. No larger primary tubercles in the interambulacra above the ambitus; the
labrum very short, not reaching beyond the middle of the first adjoining
amibtlacral plates a ccev cet fe Sucte elercie re + > oie eereSk else eg ete cera elec ae pennatifidum.
Larger primary tubercles are found at least in the anterior interambulacra
above the ambitus; the labrum generally reaching the second adjoining
amibilaeral plates uit 26 <s.c.c/5, scoyslyeroyel «10 hey 2t werepech elec ieedie a ica acca 4.
4. Very prominent primary tubercles in all the interambulacra above the am-
[OSGi se AO He BoE Soot on ecmE do reeDrldn coabonpen Don's odd Gan odo flavescens.
The primary tubercles above the ambitus little prominent, and occurring
only in the anterior interambulacra .-.. 2. cee eee et cee ie oe eis 5.
5. Internal fasciole very small; a distinct saddle-shaped depression in the apical
TEDIOM! jayapaiavc eeieyeehs asSioks tees) -ore casi Sete «Si eee teen ee te capense.

Internal fasciole large; no saddle-shaped depression in the apical region... 7fermedium.

33. Brissopsis lyrifera (Forbes).

Pl. Ill. Figs. 2—3, 7, 11—12, 18, 20—23. PL IV. Figs. 2—3, 9, 14—17. Pl. XVIII. Figs. 1, 6, 12, 18, 25—26. Pl. XIX. Figs. 3, 6, 10,
15, 18—2T, 29, 34.

Synonyms: Schzzaster incertus Aradas.
Brissus pulvinatus Phil,
Brissopsis parma Val.

Principal literature: Forbes: British Starfishes. 1841. p. 187. — Ditben & Koren: Skandinav.
Echinodermer. p. 280. Tab. X. 46. — Philippi: Beschreibung einiger neuen Echinod. Arch. £ Naturg:
1845. p.347. — L. Agassiz & Desor: Catalogue raisonné. p. 121. Pl. XVI. 12. — Sars: Norges Echi-
nodermer. p.96. — A. Agassiz: Revision of Echini. p. 95, 354. Pl. XIX. Figs. 1—8 (non Fig. 9), XXI.
Figs. 1—2, XX XVIII. 36—38. — Perrier: Recherch. s. les pédicell. p. 173. ‘Pl. VII.9. — Lovén: Etudes
s. les Echinoidées. Pl. I. 1, II. 27—-31, III. 32, XII. roo—101, XXXVII. 213—18. On Pourtalesia. Pl. VII.

66, IX, XIX. 223—31. — Wyv. Thomson: «Porcupine»-Echinoidea. p. 750. — A. Agassiz: «Chal-
lenger»-Echinoidea. p. 189. — Koehler: Recherches s. les Echinoidées des cétes de Provence. p. 135.

Meissner & Collin: Beitr. z. Fauna d. siidést. u. dstl. Nordsee. II. Echinodermen. p. 334. (Figure.)

Ludwig: Echinodermen d. Mittelmeeres. p. 562. — Bell: Catalogue Brit. Echinoderms. p. 172. —

ECHINOIDEA. IL. 153

Hoyle: Revised List Brit. Echinoidea. p. 422. — Bell: Echinoidea of South Africa, p.175. — Grieg:
Nordlige Norges Echinodermer. p. 34. — Déderlein: Arktische Seeigel. Fauna Arctica. IV. p. 384.
Echinoiden d. deutschen Tiefsee-Exped. p. 256. Taf. XXXIV. 4—8. XLIX. r—2.

Non: A. Agassiz: Preliminary Rep. Echini & Starfishes dredged in deep water between Cuba
and the Florida Reef by L. F. de Pourtalés. I. Catalogue of the Echini. p. 275, 294. Bull. Mus. Comp.
Zool. 1869. «Blake»-Echinoldea. p. 69. Pl. XXVI.7—18. — Verrill (418). p. 139.

Other less important literary references are found in «Revision of Echini», Ludwig: Echino-
dermen d. Mittelmeeres and Bell’s Catalogue.

As appears from the numerous literary references this species has been mentioned and figured
very often. Nevertheless, something still remains to be done. — Regarding the structure of the test
I may only point out that the hinder prolongation of the labrum is narrow and reaches only to the
middle of the first adjoining ambulacral plates. (In one specimen, however, I have found it to reach
the second ambulacral plates, and in a few specimens to the second ambulacral plate on one side only).
The first plate which reaches within the subanal fasciole is, as is usually the case among the Prymno-
desmic Spatangoids, the 6th, and only three pairs of pores are found inside the fasciole. These features
are of importance for the comparison with the species described below.

The pedicellariz were first mentioned by Koehler (Op. cit.), who finds three kinds of them,
which do not, however, present «aucun caractére saillant, qui permette d’en faire une déscription
spéciale» (Op. cit.). I cannot agree with Koehler herein; on the contrary I find the pedicellaric of
the Grissopsis-species, especially the globiferous ones, very characteristic and of great importance for
distinguishing the different species. Quite recently Professor Déderlein (Echinoiden d. deutschen
Tiefsee-Exped.) has described and figured the pedicellarice of the form of Br. fyrifera which occurs at
the Cape of Good Hope. Though his figures are, most of them at least, very good, I think it will
not be found to be superfluous, when I give some figures of the pedicellarize of this species also —
— partly because the Cape-specimens of Br. lyrifera ought, in my opinion, at least to be regarded as
a distinct variety, and partly because these figures are wanted for the comparison with those of the
new species here separated from /y77/era. Several details will also be found more clearly represented
than in the photographic figures given by Dé6derlein. — For the rest both descriptions and figures
were prepared a long time before Déderlein’s work had appeared. — I have found the same four
kinds of pedicellarize as found by Déderlein, ophicephalous pedicellarie not having been found by
either of us.

The globiferous pedicellarize (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 1,6, 25,26) are rather conspicuous. The thick skin
that invests the valves is probably of a glandular nature; in the living animal it is of a vivid yellow
colour. The blade is a narrow tube with a small opening at the point, bordered by two long teeth.
The basal part is rather wide, somewhat variable in form. At the lower end of the stalk there is a
whorl of rather long, projecting thorns, but apparently never on more than half the circumference of
the stalk. Not always a distinct thickening at the upper end of the stalk. This kind of pedicellariz
I have found on almost all the specimens examined from the Mediterranean; on those from the

Danish Seas it is not so common. They are generally found on the abactinal side between the fasciole

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV, 2. 20

S ECHINOIDEA. II.
154 poe Pas

and the periproct, sometimes at the periproct and in the hinder lateral ambulacra at the sides of the
anal area; only once have I seen them in the anterior ambulacrum near the mouth. They seldom
occur in great numbers; 4-valved specimens may occur. Also in young specimens this kind of pedi-
cellariee may occur, I have found them in a specimen of 11™™ length. — What Koehler calls «pédi-
cellaires gemmiformes» are evidently not the globiferous but the rostrate pedicellariz, the expression
cla tige calcaire de la hampe est peu éloignée de la téte» not being in accordance with the globi-
ferous pedicellariz.

The rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Figs. 6, 15, 18, 20, 21,34) occur in very different sizes (up to
o8™™ length of head). The valves are wide apart, joining only with the point; they are not covered
with a thick glandular skin like the globiferous pedicellaria. The blade is narrow, with smooth incurved
edges, leaving a narrow median slit; the outer part of the blade is quite open, a little widened. The
' point is rather abruptly cut, with 8—r1o rather large serrations in the edge (in small ones only 6 such
serrations), those in the middle being the largest. No meshwork in the blade, but there may be in
the lower part a few crossbeams uniting the edges. The edges of the basal part are smooth. The
valves may be very strongly curved towards the point or only quite little so; sometimes there is a
distinct hump at the point (Pl. XIX. Fig. 20). — The figures give an idea of how much they may
vary in shape. — The neck is generally well developed; the stalk is rather long, with only a small
«milled» ring below. Also of this kind of pedicellariz 4-valved specimens may occur. They are found
over the whole test, but are especially numerous round the mouth and anal opening and in the anter-
ior ambulacrum on the abactinal side.

The tridentate pedicellariz are generally richly developed and occur in two or three rather
different forms, though not very sharply distinguished, transitional forms (among the small specimens)
being found. The largest form (Pl. XIX. Fig. 29) (head up to ca. 1™™ long) has the valves rather wide
apart in about the lower half of their length; the blade is narrow and somewhat compressed, with a
rather sharp median keel on the outer side in the lower half, the outer part, where the valves join,
being more or less spoonshaped widened, and the keel disappearing gradually. No meshwork in the
blade, only just above the apophysis there may be a few crossbeams uniting the edges. The edge of
the lower, narrow part has generally a few large irregular serrations, on the outer, widened part it is
finely serrate. The edge of the basal part and the apophysis smooth. The holes of the outer part are
often large and somewhat irregular. — The second form (Pl. XIX. Fig. 3) has the blade almost closed,
with only a small part of the point widened; this form is, however, not very sharply distinguished
from the first form and does not occur very commonly. Quite small specimens with the blade scarcely
narrowed below sometimes occur — in one specimen («Ingolf» St.6) I found them especially developed
(Pl. XIX. Fig. 19) but I have also seen them in other specimens. The third form (Pl. XIX. Fig. 10) is
more distinct and is probably always present. The valves join in almost their whole length; the blade
is simply leafshaped, and the edge is straight and finely serrate; there is a slight median keel along
the dorsal side of the blade. This form attains almost the same size as the first one, up to ca. 1™™

(head). All the tridentate pedicellariz have a well developed neck, and the stalk has a distinct milled

ring below.

ECHINOIDEA. II.

H
1
1 wm

The triphyllous pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 12) very much resemble small specimens of the
third form ot tridentate pedicellariz, differing from them, however, in the blade being broader and
the basal part narrower. — Ophicephalous pedicellariz do not occur, at least I have not found them
in any of the numerous specimens, which I have examined. — As for the tubefeet and the plates of
the disk reference must be made to Lovén’s very beautiful figures. Only a pair of spicules are
figured here (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 18). In some specimens the inner tubefeet of the anterior series of the
anterior petals are rather large, not of the shape of gills like the other tubefeet of the petals, and
full of spicules, whereas spicules are wanting in the transformed feet. In most specimens these tube-
feet are quite rudimentary. Genital papillae are sometimes very distinct.

A few young specimens found among the vast numbers of larger specimens in our Museum
enable me to give some information — though very far from complete — of the postembryonal dev-
elopment of this species. The youngest specimen is scarcely 3™™ long; it shows as yet no trace of the
petals, and the same is the case in a specimen of 4™™ length. This is not in accordance with the
statements of Agassiz, who finds the petals distinct already in a specimen of only 36" length
(Pl. XIX. Fig. 7. «Revis. of Echini»); only in specimens of ca. 8™™ I find the petals of a size corres-
ponding to that figured by Agassiz for a specimen of 36™". There seems then to be some error in
Agassiz’ statement, either «36» is a printing error, or the specimen is not Lr. dyrifera (comp.
the following remarks on the American specimens of «&y. lyrifera»), as it can scarcely be supposed
that so considerable variation occurs in the development of the same species. (My young specimens
were taken in the Kattegat, where no other species of Arzssopfsis occurs, any error in the identification
being thus excluded). The suckers of the odd ambulacrum are well developed in the youngest speci-
mens, but can in no way be said to be enormous or even «gigantic». The form of the peripetalous
fasciole is rectangular, as figured by Agassiz. In the youngest specimen the periproct is still close
to the peripetalous fasciole. It may be emphasized that the peripetalous and subanal fascioles are
quite without any connection even in the youngest specimen; no anal branches are developed from
the subanal fasciole. The latter includes in a specimen of 85™™ as yet only three ambulacral plates
and, accordingly, only two pairs of pores. In the specimen of 4™™ length only two ambulacral plates
reach within the fasciole, the third reaching only the border of the fasciole; no pores (or tubefeet) are
as yet developed within the fasciole. How it is in the specimen of 3™™ I have been unable to see
with certainty.

This species often shows curious monstrosities in the Danish Seas, as is also the case with Sfa-
tangus purpureus and Echinocardium flavescens (Comp. above p. 124, 136). Meissner & Collin (Op. cit.)
have figured a comparatively slightly monstrous specimen from the North Sea, and another is figured
by Déderlein (Op. cit. Pl. XXXIV. Fig. 7). Often the actinal plastron is formed in the shape of a
deep furrow in the bottom of which the spines are placed, the adjoining ambulacra forming a high
ridge on either side. Also the odd anterior ambulacrum on the abactinal side or even the anterior
half of the test may be quite sunken. In PI. III. Figs. 2,7, 11 some of these monstrosities are represented.
The suggestion that they are caused by some kind of parasitic organism seems not improbable, but
I have been unable to ascertain the fact.

This species was taken by the «Ingolf» at three stations only, viz.:

20

156 ECHINOIDEA. I.

St. 6 (63° 43' Lat. N. 14° 34’ Long. W. 90 fathoms 7°0C. Bottom temp.) 1 specimen.
== 81(63° 56) | si) 212 40 ae 1:3 © ance = sided =
— 85 (63°21 — 2525 — 17, © sae -— ===) ir 25

Br. lyrifera is very common in the European Seas, from Northern Norway and Iceland
(the South Coast) to the Mediterranean. It is further stated to occur at the Cape of Good Hope and
in the American Seas, from Greenland to the West Indies. The bathymetrical distribution is stated to
be from shallow water to 2435 fathoms. — This wide geographical and bathymetrical distribution
looks somewhat suspicious, the more so, as the species is said to be very variable. A close examina-
tion shows that the great «variation» is mainly due to different species having been confounded, and
the wide geographical and bathymetrical distribution of 47 lyrifera must be considerably restricted.

The Mediterranean form of Ly. lyrifera has been described as a distinct species (Gressus) pul-
vinatus by Philippi (Op. cit), evidently without knowledge of the «Avzssus lyrifer» described by
Forbes (1841). All later authors agree in uniting By. pelotmatus with lyrifera, and probably they are
right herein, though certain differences can be pointed out as distinguishing the Mediterranean from
the northern form. The specimens from the Mediterranean are generally more elongate, and especially
the posterior end of the test is more vertical than in the northern form and a little hollowed. The
posterior petals are a little more parallel than in the northern form, and the figure formed by the
peripetalous fasciole is somewhat narrower. The odd anterior ambulacrum is narrower and its sides
more vertical than in the northern form. When comparing specimens from the Mediterranean with
specimens from the Skagerrak the difference is very considerable (Pl. III. Figs. 12, 20,23 and PI. IV.
Fig.g — comp. with Pl. III. Figs. 3, 18,21—22, further Pl. IV. Figs. 2—3, 16, comp. with Pl.IV. Figs. 14
—15,17); but these, evidently, are the extreme forms. All transitional forms may be found, and speci- ,
mens of both forms may occur in the same locality; I have both forms from Bergen and from the
Bay of Biscay. Other more reliable characters in the structure of the test, by which they might be
distinguished, I have been unable to find, nor are reliable characters found in the pedicellariz, though
they are upon the whole more slender in the Mediterranean form. All the specimens from the Medi-
terranean, which I have seen, are white, whereas all the specimens of the northern form, with a very
few exceptions, are dark coloured. If this is the case also in the living specimens and does not depend
on the preservation, it is certainly a difference worth noticing, and in that case I would think it right
to distinguish the Mediterranean form as a variety of lyrifera, var. pulvinata. I can only state, that
all the very numerous living specimens of the northern form of lyrvifera which I have seen, were
dark brownish.

What the Srissopsis parma Val. named by Perrier (Rech. s. les pédicellaires p. 174) really is,
cannot be settled, the type specimen not being found any longer in the Paris Museum. Since, how-
ever, it has (according to a communication from Professor E. Perrier) come from Stockholm (through
Malm), it can scarcely be doubted that Agassiz was right in making it a synonym of Jyrifera. At
any rate we must be satisfied with the statement.

The occurrence of rissopsis lyrifera at the Cape of Good Hope was first recorded in the «Chal-
lenger»-Echinoidea (St. 141, 142; Simons Bay, Agulhas Bank), Agassiz (Op. cit. p. 189) stating that he

was «unable to distinguish specimens of this genus collected at St. 142 from Brissopsis lyrifera except by

ECHINOIDEA. II. 157

such indifferent characters as a somewhat more compact test with a slight keel from the apex to the
anal system, a closer tuberculation and a slightly sharper peripetalous fasciole; characters which are
found in specimens coming from such distant localities as the Coast of Norway and the western
shore of Spain». The species has further been recorded from that region by Bell (Echinoidea of South
Africa. p.175) and recently by Déderlein (Echinoidea d. deutsch. Tiefsee-Exp. p. 256), both authors
likewise regarding the Cape-specimens as specifically identical with the 2B. dyrifera from the Northern
Atlantic; Professor Déderlein, however, points out as differences between the two forms that in the
northern specimens the anterior end is considerably lower than the posterior, the odd interambulacrum
rising somewhat («kraftig»), which is not the case in the Cape-form. Further the anterior petals are
straight in the northern form, whereas in the Cape-specimens the petals are slightly curved (but only
in the larger specimens). In the pedicellarie D6derlein finds no essential difference between the
two forms.

Any further differences in the structure and the shape of the test between the Cape-specimens
and the northern form of Srissopsis lyrifera I have been unable to find by a brief examination of
the «Challenger»-specimens in the British Museum. In the pedicellariz, however, I find some small
differences. The globiferous pedicellariz often, though not always, show the peculiar feature of the
edge of the basal part of the valves being very irregular (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 3);! the upper end of the
stalk is mostly irregular with a projection on one side (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 23); otherwise they agree with
those of the northern form of /yvzfera. The larger forms of tridentate pedicellarie do not show any
reliable differences from those of the northern form, whereas the second, smaller form differs rather
considerably from the corresponding form in the northern specimens (Pl. XIX. Fig. 2, comp. with
Pl. XIX. Fig. 3), the outer part of the blade being more rounded and the lower part less narrowed.
The rostrate pedicellarize are also very like those of the northern form, only the quite small specimens
of this form (Pl. XIX. Fig.9) have the valves lower and broader than is generally the case in those
of the northern specimens. I have found no form corresponding to the simply leafshaped tridentate
pedicellaricze of the northern specimens. Ophicephalous pedicellarize I have not found. In the triphyllous
pedicellarize and the spicules no differences are found between the Cape-specimens and those from
the northern seas. — The differences in the shape of the test and the form of the petals pointed out
by Déderlein together with the differences in the pedicellarize shown here seem to me to justify
separating the Cape-specimens at least as a distinct variety, which I may name capensis n. var. But
I should not be surprised, if on a careful comparison of a larger material of the Cape-form with the
northern form the former should prove a distinct species.

In the British Museum I have further examined a «Challenger»-specimen of «vzssopsis lyri-
Jera»> from Simon’s Bay, which is, however, not this species. (There are two labels in the glass, one
with 4r. lyrifera, the other with Br. duzonica, which seems to indicate that Agassiz was in doubt of
the right identification; nothing is, however, said thereof). The specimen is ca. 18" in length.
The labrum reaches to the suture between the first and second adjoining ambulacral plates. Only
two pairs of pores are included within the subanal fasciole, the first plate included being the 6th.
The anterior petals are scarcely longer than the posterior ones; they point almost directly out-

t In the valve figured here one of the terminal teeth is abnormally curved inwards.

158 ECHINOIDEA. II.
5

wards. The petals are not deepened. The apical system is somewhat anterior. The frontal tubefeet
are small, without a large sucking disk, whereas in a specimen of lyri/era, var. capensis from St. 142,
scarcely half that size, the frontal tubefeet are larger and provided with a distinct disk. The peri-
petalous fasciole is not reenteringly curved between the petals, but almost round as in Hemzaster.
Tubercles and spines are comparatively large, within the peripetalous fasciole especially there are
rather conspicuous primary tubercles scattered among the small ones in all the interambulacra. The
pedicellarie are rather sparingly developed, except the ophicephalous ones, which differ considerably
from those of other Avissopszs-species (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 7, 8,14). The basal part is quite rudimentary, as
in the Br. atlantica described below; the blade is rather elongate, the outer part distinctly narrower

than the articular surface (in Br. atlantica the outer part is as broad as or broader than the articular

surface — Pl. XVIII. Fig. 10). Otherwise only triphyllous and very small tridentate pedicellarize were
seen, which do not show characteristic features. — That this specimen does not belong to 47. lyrifera

var. capensis is certain. If it be a true Arzssopszs, it is a new species; but perhaps it is no Brzssopszs
at all — it reminds one very much of dZefalia. But I shall not try to decide to which genus and
species it really belongs, only state that it is not Br. lyrifera.

The statement of the occurrence of 47. lyrifera at Greenland dates from «Rev. of Ech.» (p. 96),
where among other localities are named «Great Britain; Greenland, Clyde (Forbes)». This statement is
reproduced by the later authors, but no new original statements are added. This seems strange, as
the marine fauna of Greenland has been much investigated, especially by Danish naturalists; but
among the vast collections from Greenland in our Museum there is not a single specimen of Br. dyri-
Jera. It seems also rather curious that Forbes is given as the authority for the locality «Greenland»;
but Forbes never was in Greenland (I suppose that E. Forbes is meant). When further it is noticed
that the locality «Greenland» is placed among the British localities; that it is separated from the
following locality «Clyde» by a comma only, whereas the other British localities named are separated by
a semicolon; that there is on the Clyde a town named Green: then it seems not quite unreasonable to
suppose that this «Greenland» is only a small locality on the Clyde. To be sure, Mr. W. T. Gibson,
Curator of the Biological Station at Millport, asserts that no locality of that name is found on the
Clyde; but there may have been at the time, when Forbes dredged there; or there may have been
some mistake with the label (the specimens are not found any longer). Professor Bell told me, on
my pointing out this matter before him, that he was quite of my opinion. However this may be, the
occurrence of Lr. lyrifera at Greenland cannot be regarded as an ascertained fact, before the species
is recorded from there through new researches. That it will be found at the East Coast of South
Greenland seems rather probable, since, as has been shown by the «Ingolf»-Expedition, it occurs in
the Denmark Strait.

From the East Coast of North America By. lyrifera is recorded from numerous localities («Re-
vision of Echini», «Blake»-Echinoidea, Verrill (426), Rathbun (335, 336), Clark (Echinoderms of
Portorico)'. I have examined rather many of these specimens (especially in the U.S. National Museum
and the Museum of Yale College) and found them to belong to three distinct species, whereas not a
single true Br. lyrifera was found among them. I think then, it will not be found quite unreasonable

* Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Comm. rgoo. II.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 159

when I venture to suppose that 47. lyrifera is not at all found on the American side of the Atlantic.
In any case it cannot be taken as proved by any of the statements hitherto made of its occur-
rence there.

From the U. S. National Museum I have received a specimen of «A#véssopsis lyrifera» from
Albatross» St. 2gor (142 fathoms; Gulf of Mexico. Rathbun 336. p.616), which is evidently identical
with the «globular type» figured by Agassiz in «Blake»-Ech. Pl. XXVI. Figs. 13—18. Specimens of
the same form I have further seen in the U. S. National Museum, the Museum of Yale College and
in the British Museum from the «Albatross» St. 2400 and 2qo1 and from the «Blake» St.49. From the
latter station there are three specimens of this form in the British Museum wrongly identified as
Pertaster limicola A. Ag. — A close examination of this form shows that it is not 4r. lyrifera, but a
very distinct species, which I shall describe here under the name of Brissopsis alta n. sp.

The shape of the test (PI. III. Figs. 5, 8, 9, 13, 16) is distinctly higher and more globular! than
in lyrifera, as is also well seen in the figures in the «Blake»-Echinoidea quoted above. The actino-
stome is very near the anterior end ,of the test, distinctly more so than in drifera. The labrum is
prominent, with a rather broad posterior prolongation, not reaching the second adjoining ambulacral
plates. The first ambulacral plate reaching within the subanal fasciole is the 6th; three pairs of pores
are enclosed within the fasciole. No anal branches of the fasciole are developed. The rather small
anal area is placed near the upper side on the high, beautifully arched posterior end. The petals are
short and rather broad, the posterior about two thirds as long as the anterior ones; in larger speci-
mens they are rather deepened. The posterior petals are completely separated, though scarcely so
widely as is generally the case in /yvifera; the tubercles appear already on the second—third plate of
the posterior interambulacrum (as in /yri/era), and only the three inner pores of the inner series of the
posterior petals are rudimentary. The area enclosed by the peripetalous fasciole is somewhat smaller
than in dyrifera,; it is rather broad, not much narrowed in the posterior lateral interambulacra, produced
somewhat backwards in the odd posterior interambulacrum. The odd anterior ambulacrum is only
slightly sunken, the front end of the test being almost regularly rounded, especially in the smaller
specimens. In the specimen received from the U. S. National Museum there are only three genital
pores, which is, however, evidently an abnormal case, all other specimens seen by me having four
genital pores. — The tubefeet and their spicules are as in J/yrifera, the spicules only may be a little
more thorny. Some of the rosette-plates may be coalesced.

The pedicellarie give very good characters distinguishing this species from /yrz/era. The glo-
biferous pedicellarize (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 27,29) have the terminal opening of the valves surrounded by
6 or 8 short teeth; the blade is a quite closed tube, somewhat curved. The basal part has a rather
close meshwork at the bottom; the edges are smooth as is also the apophysis. The valves are as in lyri
fera enclosed by a thick skin, probably glandular, but without glandular sack. There is no neck. The

stalk is provided with an irregular, sometimes very large limb with numerous free, upwards directed

t In the «Blake»-Echinoidea (p. 70) Agassiz sets forth the opinion that the «globular test» is an «embryonic feature».
I cannot see the reason for regarding this shape of the test as more embryonic than the oval, elongate form. If it be proved
that a species like the Ar. elongata described below is globular in its young stages, there may be some reason for seeing a
more primitive feature therein. But, as far as my experience goes, it cannot be said to be a general character of young
Spatangoids that their test is comparatively more globular than the test of the grown specimens.

160 ECHINOIDEA. II.

points. On the lower edge of this limb the muscles of the stalk are inserted. At the upper end the
stalk is somewhat pointed. The head is ca. o6—o'8™", the stalk ca. 1—15™™ long; the part above the
limb may be considerably longer than in the figured specimen. The rostrate pedicellarize (Pl. XIX.
Fig. 7) have long and slender valves, only slightly curved, except towards the point; the edge may
be quite smooth or more or less serrate; the point not much widened, finely serrate; the neck is
generally well developed, no limb on the stalk. Length of head ca. 1™™. The tridentate pedicellariz
(Pl. XIX. Fig. 24, 26, 27) differ rather much in shape according to size, but only one form can be
distinguished. Large specimens (up to ca.o'8™™ head) have short stalk and neck, and may be 3—4-
valved. The valves are rather wide apart, joining only for about the outer third of the length
of the blade. In the lower part the blade is narrow, more or less keeled on the dorsal side. The
edge is coarsely and more or less irregularly serrate; the serrations are generally bent outwards. No
meshwork in the bottom of the blade; often a few crossbeams unite the edges in the lower part,
just above the apophysis. The outer part of the blade, where the valves join, is somewhat spoonshaped
widened, the edge being finely and regularly serrate. The basal part is rather small, with smooth
or faintly serrate edges; the apophysis is smooth. The short stalk is rather thick and compact, with a
rather distinct miled ring below. — Small specimens generally have a long neck and a longer, slender
stalk, consisting of distinct longitudinal fibres connected by crossbeams; the valves join in almost
their whole length, and may have a single large serration in the lower part, or this part may be
quite smooth, the edge otherwise being as usual finely serrate. The blade is simply leafshaped. — The
triphyllous pedicellarize (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 4,11) may be rather variable in shape, but otherwise do not
present special features. — The spheeridize with rather numerous longitudinal ridges (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 22)
which is, however, scarcely a constant feature.

In the «Blake»-Echinoidea, Pl. XX VI. Figs. 7—8 Professor Agassiz figures an «elongated type»
of Br. lyrifera, which differs very considerably from both dyvzfera and alta through its confluent petals.
After having examined a number of specimens of this form — I am especially indebted to Professor
Rathbun for sending me several specimens to Copenhagen for study — I can show beyond doubt
that this form is not at all a mere local form of ry. Zyrifera, but a very distinct species, which I shall
describe here under the name of Brissopsis atlantica n. sp.

The general shape of the test is shown in Pl. III. Figs.6,10,17. Also the figures cited of the

Blake»-Echinoidea show it rather well, only the posterior end of the test is generally almost vertical,
not sloping as in the Fig. 8, but there is some variation in this respect. The test is upon the whole
rather low, rising somewhat towards the posterior end; the width is rather variable (see below, p. 162).
The actinostome is considerably more distant from the anterior border of the test than is the case in
Lr. alta; it is more as in Jyrifera, but on the other hand the labrum is less prominent than in that
species. The narrow posterior prolongation of the labrum does not reach the second adjoining ambu-
lacral plates. The first ambulacral plate reaching within the subanal fasciole is the 6th, and there are
generally 4 pairs of pores enclosed within the fasciole; sometimes, however, only 3 pairs are included,
which case may be found also in large specimens, while already in the smaller specimens 4 pairs of
pores may be found within the fasciole. I have also seen a specimen with 4 pores on one side and

3 on the other within the fasciole. Anal branches from the subanal fasciole may be distinct, but it is

ECHINOIDEA. II. 161

not a constant feature; in one case the anal branch was quite distinct on one side and not at all disc-
ernible on the other.

The peripetalous fasciole is narrow and elongate. The petals, which may be rather deepened
are so directed as to form a crescent-shaped figure on each side — the character hitherto thought
characteristic of the genus Zoaxobrissus (comp. below, p. 166-7). The posterior petals are «confluent», the
posterior interambulacrum forming only a narrow separating bridge, with the primary tubercles not
beginning before about halfway out, whereas in Jyrifera and alta the primary tubercles begin close
behind the apical system. In the inner (median) series of the posterior petals the large pores are found
only in the outer half, from about the gth, whereas in /yrifera and alta the large pores begin near the
inner end, from the 4th—6th. The odd interambulacrum is very narrow on the part between the peri-
petalous fasciole and the anal area. The madreporic plate is scarcely longer than in the two other
species, but it is somewhat narrower. There are four genital pores in the usual position. — Spines,
tubefeet and spicules do not afford any distinguishing characters.

The pedicellarize are very richly developed; globiferous, rostrate, tridentate, ophicephalous and
triphyllous pedicellarize have been found. The globiferous pedicellarize occur, rather surprisingly, in
two very different forms. One form (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 20,24) has very elongate, narrow valves, ending
in two long, somewhat diverging, inward bent teeth. The valves are clad in a rather thick coat of
skin; the stalk is very short. Length of head ca. 1-5—18™™." The other form (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 5, 9, 19)
is like the type found in a@/fa, but there are generally only two teeth on either side of the terminal
opening. The stalk has a rather small circlet of thorns below. Length of head ca. o5™™. It may be ex-
pressly noticed that I have found both kinds of globiferous pedicellariz in the same specimen, though
certainly not in all of them. It may not seem unreasonable to suggest that both kinds of globiferous
pedicellariz may also prove to occur in other species, as e. g. Br. alta and columbaris (in which latter
species the slender form occurs, as I have been able to prove on specimens examined in the U. S.
National Museum). — The tridentate pedicellariz likewise occur in two distinct forms. One form
(Pl. XIX. Figs. 11, 33) has very elongate, slender valves, very wide apart, joining only for a very short
space at the point. This outer part is widened, with finely serrate edges; all the rest of the blade is
quite narrow, with smooth edges or with one or a few teeth near the outer end. A few crossbeams
are generally found in the lower part of the blade. The valves are almost straight. Length of head
up to ca.15™™. The neck is very well developed, the stalk long and slender. The other form (Pl. XIX.
Figs. 1, 28, 32) is very like that found in 47. alta, and may likewise occur four-valved. There are large
teeth in the lower, somewhat narrowed part, whereas the outer part, where the valves join, has the
edges finely serrate. In smaller specimens of this form the valves join for a considerably larger part
of their length, only one or two large teeth occurring in the lower narrowed part. I have not seen
specimens of this form larger than 1:2™™ length of head. Neck and stalk as in the first form; the
neck may be much longer than in the specimen figured, in which it is somewhat contracted. — The

rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig.5) remind one very much of the slender form of tridentate pedi-

1 A quite similar form of globiferous pedcellaria was described and figured by Dr. de Meijere (Siboga-Echinoi-
dea. p. 189. Pl. XXIII. Fig. 474), from some specimens wrongly referred to Brissopsis /uzonica; through the kindness of Pro-
fessor M. Weber I have received one of these specimens and can thus state definitely that it is not 47. /uzonia but a new
species, which I intend to describe in Part II of the Siam-Echinoidea.

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 21

162 ECHINOIDEA. IL.

cellarize, only the widened part at the point is smaller, the blade is more curved, and, generally, the
edges of the basal part are distinctly serrate for a short space. This form reaches a size of ca. r™™
length of head; it is, indeed, not sharply distinguished from the tridentate pedicellariz, transitional
forms being found, which may almost with equal right be referred to either of these kinds. On the
other hand a smaller form of rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 4) may also be found, which is more
like the form known from Jyrifera. In quite small specimens the widened part in the point of the
blade is comparatively larger (Pl. XIX. Fig. 25) — if upon the whole this form ought to be regarded
as a rostrate pedicellaria; it might perhaps as well be termed tridentate. The ophicephalous pedicel-
lariee (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 10), which are only occasionally found in the larger specimens, are rather char-
acteristic. The basal part is quite small; the blade is rather broad in the outer end, its edges are
serrate almost down to the articular surface; the apophysis is sometimes very broad. (Pl. XVIIL
Fig. 13).1 — The triphyllous pedicellariz are like those of lyriera.

This species is evidently rather common and widely distributed along the American side of
the Atlantic. I have seen specimens from the following stations of the «Albatross»: 2077 (1255 fathoms)
2230 (1168 fms.), 2343 (279 fms.), 2378 (68 fms.), 2401 (142 fms.), 2562? (1434 fms.), 2571 (1356 fms.), 2684
(1106 fms.), 2748 (1163 fms.). I have further dredged a specimen myself off Christiansted, St. Cruz, in
ca. 200 fathoms. It may not be too hazardous to prophesy that probably many more of the American
specimens referred to Br. lyrifera will prove to belong to this species, while the rest will be Br. alta
or the species described below, Br. elongata, or even Periaster limicola, whereas I doubt if there are
any true 4r. lyrifera among them.

Some specimens from the stations 2077, 2208, 2230, 2571, 2684 and 2748 are somewhat broader
than those from the other stations named; some of them are narrowed towards the posterior end.
Also the posterior petals may be more sunken than is generally the case in the narrower form; the
colour seems to be darker and the test more fragile than in the narrow form. (The species has upon
the whole a rather fragile and thin test). Generally, but not always, this broad form has only three
pairs of pores within the fasciole; the labrum is also somewhat more prominent. As, however. the
other features, especially the petals and pedicellarize are alike, I do not think it possible to keep the
broad form as a distinct variety, or even a distinct species, the more so, as there are transitional forms.
That the broad and narrow form may occur together (e. g. from St. 2077) need not, of course, imply that
they cannot be distinct species. After the material at my disposal I must regard them all as one
species, which is rather variable in regard to the width of the test. In Pl. III. Fig. 17 is represented a
specimen of the broad form.

In the Museum of the Yale College I found in a specimen from St. 2268 (68 fms.) a very curious
kind of «tridentate» pedicellariee (Pl. XIX. Figs. 14, 22,30). It has no less than 8 valves, a case quite
unparalleled. The valves are rather narrow and flat, the point bending inwards as a hook. The speci-
men otherwise agrees with a@//antica, and both kinds of globiferous pedicellarize are found on it. There

' This form of ophicephalous pedicellaria was found in a very young specimen, whose identification is not
beyond doubt.

* The specimens (one and some fragments) from this station have the petals somewhat less distinctly crescent-shaped

than is otherwise the case in this species; none of the more characteristic pedicellarize were found. I dare not assert
beyond doubt therefore that it is really this species, though I for my part think it really is.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 163

can scarcely be any doubt that these curious eight-valved pedicellarie are an abnormal case. If it
should prove a constant feature, it would certainly be a sufficient character for distinguishing this
form as at least a separate variety.

From the Paris Museum I have received a specimen of «Br. lyrifera» from the «Talisman»,
1550 M. It has confluent petals like 4r. atlantica, and the shape of the test is as in that species (PI. III.
Fig. 1. PL IV. Figs. 5, 19), only the labrum is somewhat more prominent. There are only three pairs of
pores within the subanal fasciole. The pedicellarize, unfortunately, are very sparingly represented, only
one form of tridentate, rostrate and triphyllous pedicellarizee being found. The tridentate differ some-
what from those of @¢lantica (Pl. XIX. Figs. 13, 31). Also the rostrate pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Figs. 8, 16,
23) show some minor differences, especially in the basal part having often irregularly serrate edges.
I do not venture to state that this specimen belongs to 47. atlantica; but in any case it is not
Br. lyrifera.

From Puerto Cabello we have in our Museum some specimens of a 4rzssopsis which prove to
belong to another, very distinct, new species; I shall describe it here under the name of Brissopsis
elongata n.sp. I have seen in the U.S. National Museum a specimen of this species from the «Alba-
tross» St. 2145 (25 fms. Caribbean Sea), referred to Ar. lyrifera, and further I have examined there
the specimens from Porto Rico mentioned as Lrzssopsis lyrifera by Clark (The Echinoderms of Porto
Rico. Bull. U. S. Fish. Comm. XX. Part II. 1900. p. 254) and find them likewise to belong to this
species. Probably also the specimens from the Sea between Jamaica and San Domingo mentioned by
Agassiz («Blake»-Ech. p. 69) as «representing the extreme elongated form» of 4. lyrifera will turn
out to be Br. elongata. In any case it is certain that this species also has been recorded as by. lyrifera.

The shape of the test (PI. III. Figs. 4, 14,15, 19. Pl. IV. Figs. 1, 4,13) is upon the whole like that
of Br. atlantica, viz. the narrow form, only the posterior end is more vertical than is generally the
case in that species. The labrum is very little prominent, its anterior edge almost straight; its poster-
ior prolongation ends off the middle of the second ambulacral plate and it is much widened off the
border between the first and second ambulacral plate (Pl. III. Fig. 19). The spines of the actinal plastron
accordingly do not reach so near to the mouth as in the other species. The first of the ambulacral
plates reaching within the subanal fasciole is the 7th.' This is a highly interesting case, showing that
the number of «ventral» plates is not everywhere limited to five, as maintained by Lovén (On Pour-
talesia. p. 33); the same case is found in Zoxobrissus pacificus. (I know of one more case, viz. in a new
species, which I am, however, not entitled to describe). There are 4 pairs of pores within the fasciole
(Pl. IV. Fig. 18); sometimes the posterior one is indistinct and the tubefoot simple, not penicillate as
the others. In one case I have found only 3 pores on one side, while on the other side all 4 pores
were present. The spines of the subanal plastron are rather long and form two prominent tufts,
separated by a median belt of small spines. The posterior petals are almost as long as the anterior
ones; they are parallel in almost their whole length and very close together, separated only by some
very narrow interambulacral plates without tubercles (and spines), the latter beginning only on the

1 In the specimen figured in PLIV. Fig.1 it is in the left ambulacrum exceptionally the 6th, which reaches the
fasciole. On the right side it is the 7th.

Ze

ECHINOIDEA. II.

164

5—6th plate (in Zyrifera they begin on the 2—3rd plate). The peripetalous fasciole forms, in accordance
with the great length of the posterior petals, a rather elongate figure. The subanal fasciole is very
strongly developed, and a small anal branch extends from it along each side of the anal area towards
the peripetalous fasciole. In none of the specimens before me, however, does it reach more than half
way up.

With regard to the tubefeet a single feature must be noticed, viz. that the plates of the rosette
are very broad in their outer part, and generally divided into 2—3 lobes (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 17). The spi-
cules (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 16) are more spinous than in Jyrifera.

The pedicellarie are very characteristic and show at once this form to be very distinct from
the other species. Globiferous, tridentate, rostrate, ophicephalous and triphyllous pedicellariz are found.
The globiferous pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Figs. 15, 21, 28) are especially found in the posterior ambu-
lacra, off the subanal plastron, where they may form a very conspicuous stripe, being generally dark
brown and rather large — ca. 1™™ head. The stalk is very short, ca. o'2™™, with a small thickening
on the middle, but no circlet of thorns. There is no neck. The valves bend a little inwards and are
provided with mostly 2, sometimes 1 or 3, strong, upwards directed teeth, placed in the median line
on the outer side, just above the basal part; sometimes these teeth are coalesced, sometimes the
lower of them points downwards; I have found a single small globiferous pedicellaria, where they are
wanting. The blade is narrow, quite closed, ending in two very long teeth. The basal part is rather
small, the edge is smooth, as is also the case with the almost straight edge of the apophysis. There
is a thick skin around the valves. Evidently this form corresponds to the long, narrow form of globi-
ferous pedicellarie in Ar. atlantica. Probably also the other form will prove to occur in this species.

The tridentate pedicellariz (Pl. XIX. Fig. 12) may reach a considerable size, up to 1°5™™ (head),
but otherwise occur in all sizes down to quite small ones. They are mostly, the larger ones exclusively,
found around the mouth and on the posterior ambulacra on the actinal side. The valves are widely
separated, joining only towards the point. The blade is narrow in the lower part, not very deep, but
generally with a well developed meshwork at the bottom. No distinct longitudinal keel along the
outer side. The edge is smooth, only with 1— 4 large, a little outwards directed, teeth towards the
outer part. The end of the blade, where the valves join, is somewhat widened, the edge being finely
but rather deeply serrate. The basal part is rather small; the edges are smooth, as is also the edge
of the apophysis. The smaller specimens have the edge of the lower (shorter), narrow part of the blade
quite smooth; there is no meshwork at the bottom. Otherwise they do not differ essentially from the
larger ones, and only one form of tridentate pedicellarize can be distinguished. Even in the smallest
ones the valves join only with the outer half of the blades. The neck is very well developed; the
stalk is long, consisting of rather loosely connected fibres. The milled ring at the lower end is rather
indistinct. — The rostrate pedicellarie (Pl. XIX. Fig. 17) which I have found only in the specimen
from «Albatross» 2145, are very characteristic; the blade is narrow, rounded in the point and closely
serrate some way down the side edges. The point is not widened. Only quite small specimens were
found. The ophicephalous pedicellariz (Pl. XVIII. Fig. 2), which occur almost exclusively on the naked
posterior ambulacra on the actinal side, are small, without neck, as usual among the Irregular Echi-

noids; the stalk is irregularly fenestrated, not distinctly fibrous; its upper end is cupshaped; no milled

ECHINOIDEA. I. 165

ring below. The valves are much narrowed in the middle, the basal part being very narrow. The blade
is wide, deep in the middle and with sharp corners; the edge is strongly serrate almost down to the
articular surface. There is a small prolongation on the outermost of the three arches. — The tri-

phyllous pedicellariz do not differ from those of lyrifera.

After what has been pointed out here it is evident that the geographical and bathymetrical
distribution of Brissopszs lyrifera has to be considerably restricted from what was previously generally
accepted. The species is known with certainty only from the European Seas, from Norway to the
Mediterranean, from the British Seas, the Faroe Islands, South of Iceland and Denmark Strait. The
bathymetrical distribution is from shallow water to ca. 200 fathoms.' It is, of course, quite possible
that it does really go down to considerably greater depths, like other sublittoral species of Echinoids,
as e. g. Echinus esculentus and Strongylocentrotus dribachiensts. Likewise it is quite possible that it
will prove really to occur at the American side of the Atlantic; but we cannot accept that on the
previous statements; renewed investigations are needed in the light of the facts made known here.
That the small specimens from the «Porcupine» from 2090? fathoms (Wyv. Thomson. «Porcupine»-
Ech. p.750) are not really Gr. lyrifera, may be said with rather great certainty.

The true Ly. lyrifera certainly shows considerable variation in the shape of the test, but by
no means so much as assumed by Agassiz, who has regarded the two very distinct species Ly. alta
and atlantica (1 cannot prove that 4&r. elongata was also confounded with lyriera by Agassiz) as
variations only of dyrifera The «additional light» said by Agassiz to be «thrown on the changes
we may expect to find among Spatangoids of this group in one and the same species» by all the
very different looking specimens of «4rissopsis lyrifera» from the «Blake» was, indeed, only additional
confusion. In the «Revision of Echini» p.356 Agassiz states of rissopsis lyrifera that with age «the
lateral pairs of ambulacra gradually tend to unite, passing froma strictly Brissopsis outline (Pl. XIX. £ 8)
to one considered hitherto characteristic of Toxobrissus (Pl. XTX. f.9)». And further (p. 355): «The cha-
racter of continuity of the adjoining pairs of ambulacra, which Desor assigns to Toxobrissus as a
distinguishing feature, becomes more and more apparent according to the size of the specimens; so
much so, that we should place Brissopsis lyrifera, when young, in Brissopsis, but when full grown it
would most decidedly pass for a Toxobrissus». — It must be decidedly maintained that among the true
Brissopsts lyrifera there is no tendency in the posterior petals to unite with age; they are in the full
grown specimens at least as distant as in the young ones, if not more. Even the figures given by
Agassiz himself in the «Revision of Echini» show sufficiently that the continuity of the posterior
petals is not a feature developed with age. Pl. XIX. Fig.g is from a specimen 27:9" long, with very
confluent ambulacra; but in Pl. XXI. Fig. 2, representing a specimen of 49™™, the ambulacra do not
show the slightest tendency to unite. Evidently the specimen figured in Pl. XIX.g is a Br. atlantica

« In IX. Report from the Danish Biological Station 1899, it is recorded from 210 fathoms from the Skagerrak.

2 In the Challenger-Ech. p. 220 the greatest depth is stated to be 2435 fathoms.

3 In the Preliminary Report on the Echini of the «Albatross» (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. XXXII. 1898. p. 82) Agassiz
expresses some doubt of the correctness of referring to Arvissofsis such forms as the elongate type figured in the «Blake»-

Ech. Pl. XXVI. Fig. 7, but in the «Panamic Deep Sea Echini» p. 191 he again speaks of «the elongated and globular speci-
mens of the West Indian 4rzssopsis lyrifera».

166 ECHINOIDEA. II.
(or elongata)! the confusion of this species with lyrifera having caused the erroneous statement of the
development of the petals. — It is also a curious fact that in the «Blake»-Ech. p.70 Agassiz speaks
of the confluent ambulacra as an «embryological character», in direct opposition to the above citations,
where this character is said to be developed with age.

The subanal fasciole is also said («Rev. of Ech.» loc. cit.) to be subject to very great changes,
due to different stages of growth; in the «Blake»-Echinoidea it is even stated to have disappeared
completely in some specimens, viz. in the globular specimens from off Missisippi. That none of these
globular specimens are really By. lyrifera, I think beyond doubt; they will probably turn out to be
partly Br. alta and partly, viz. those without a subanal fasciole, Periaster limicola. (To be sure, I have
not myself seen any specimens of Periaster limicola identified as «Brissopsis lyrifera>, but I have seen
specimens of Brissopsts «lyrifera» (alta) identified as Perzaster limicola (comp. above p. 159), so it may
not seem very hazardous to suggest that the reverse case may also be found), Until by a renewed
examination of these globular specimens without a subanal fasciole it is shown definitely to which

species they belong, I must doubt that they belong to the genus Avzssopsis. So far as my experience

goes — and I have examined a considerable number of specimens, especially of the species lyrifera
and Juzonica — the subanal fasciole is very constant in this genus, as upon the whole this fasciole is

one of the most constant features in the Amphisternous Spatangoids. That it may, however, sometimes
really disappear I have shown above (p. 129) for Spatangus Raschz.— On the other hand there is really
considerable variation in the anal branch, the small fasciole running from the subanal tasciole along
the sides of the anal area straight towards the peripetalous fasciole in the Avzssopszs-species, as
pointed out by Agassiz. But this fasciole must, of course, not be confounded with the subanal fasciole.
In the true 4y. lyrifera the anal branch is very seldom developed; only in a single specimen («Ingolf»
St.6) they were both distinctly developed, reaching the peripetalous fasciole; in a very few instances
I have found slight traces thereof.

In the «Panamic Deep Sea Echini» (p. 193) Professor Agassiz maintains the old genus Zoxo-
brissus Desor, pointing out the following characters as distinguishing it from 4rzssopses: The genital
plates of Zoxobrissus do not extend into the interambulacral areas, which they do in Svzssopsis. The
extremities of five ambulacral plates are included in the «anal» (viz. subanal) fasciole of Zoxobrissus,
whereas only four are so included in 4rzssopses. The labrum of Arzssopszs is shorter and more T-shaped
than in 7oxobrissus. Further «the arrangement of the apical interambulacral plates of the odd inter-
ambulacrum shows at once the radical difference existing between Toxobrissus and Brissopsis». The
confluence of the posterior petals is not recognised as a character of the genus Zoxodrissus,
the West Indian specimens of «&rzssopsis lyrifera» with confluent ambulacra being expressly stated not
to belong to the genus Zoxobrissus (p. 191. Note); on the other hand it is said (p. 193) after pointing

out the characters mentioned above as distinguishing Zoxodrissus and Brissopsis — «that we are

« Bittner (Uber Parabrissus und einige andere alttertidre Echiniden-Gattungen. Verhandl. d. K. K. geol. Reichs-
anstalt. 1891. p. 137) has already suggested that these figures do not represent one and the same species — «eine Umwand-
lung yon Taf. XIX. Fig. 8 durch Taf. XIX. Fig.g in Taf. XXI. Fig. 2 anzunehmen, diirfte sehr gewagt sein». Also Pomel has
perhaps seen that; in any case he says (Classif. méth. p. 33): <le prétendu Brissopsis lyrifera de la Floride est probablement
une autre espéce vivante», viz. of the genus AZe‘nia, which he maintains as a separate genus.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 167

justified .... in establishing genera based upon the coalescence of ambulacra» — which seems rather
contradictory.

The question of the two genera is, however, by no means solved by the remarks of Agassiz,
and the characters pointed out by him are of very slight value. The character that the genital plates
are a little longer in Arzssopsis than in TYoxobrissus can scarcely be taken to be meant seriously; at
least I am unable to see the generic difference in the extension of the genital plates in the Figures
278 (Br. lyrifera) and 279 (T. pacificus) given by Agassiz (Op. cit. p.191 and 193). Further as regards
the characters of the labrum and the five ambulacral plates included within the subanal fasciole Arzs-
sopsis elongata agrees exactly with 7) pacificus. (In the specimen represented in Pl. 105.4 (and Text-
figure 280) the labrum is abnormal, not reaching beyond the 1.ambulacral plate of I.a; in the specimen
represented in Pl. 103. 3 it is symmetrical, reaching the middle of the second ambulacral plate on both
sides, exactly as in 7. elongata). Also in the important character that the first ambulacral reaching
within the fasciole is the 7th, the two species agree (that it is so in 7. pacificus is not mentioned
in the text, but it is distinctly seen in Pl. 103.3). Brissopszs elongata thus agrees with Toxobrissus
pacificus in three of its distinguishing characters, the form and extension of the labrum, number and
numero of ambulacral plates reaching within the subanal fasciole, and the confluent posterior petals,'
but according to Agassiz? it cannot be referred to the genus Zoxodrissus on account of the «radical
difference» in the odd interambulacrum, viz. that in Zoxodrissus «the fourth abactinal series (of the
odd interambulacrum) is reduced to a single plate».s Now this structure seems to be quite abnormal,
and it is not stated expressly to occur in all the specimens, though this might well have been worth
stating of a character thought to be so important; indeed, it does not seem to be so in the specimen
figured in Pl. 103.4 — as far as can be seen it is here quite as usual, and in any case in the fig. 279
the fourth plate is seen to be double. The odd interambulacrum is thus evidently quite normal also
in Zoxobrissus pacificus and no character distinguishing this genus and Brissopsis is to be found
therein. If the species Aacéficus is really a Toxobrissus the Br. elongata then evidently also belongs
to that genus — but its characters are not those pointed out by Agassiz.

A short revision of the more important characters in the 4rzssopsis-species must be given and
the grouping of the species after these characters shown, before the value of the genus Zoxodrissus
can be appropriately discussed. The following characters must be taken as the more important, after
which generic divisions might possibly be made: the posterior petals, confluent or divergent; the
number of plates included within the subanal fasciole; the numero of the first plate reaching within
this fasciole; the posterior extension of the labrum; finally the structure of the globiferous pedicellariz.
Other features can scarcely come into consideration for use eventually as a foundation for generic
divisions.

« Whether the pedicellariz of 7. pacificus are like those of e/ongata, 1 cannot say. I have found on the specimens
examined in the U. S. National Museum only tridentate pedicellarie, which are very different from those of e/ongata, the
valves being rather flat, provided with numerous long, coarse, outwards directed teeth in the lower part of the blade (in
larger specimens; having no complete valves I shall not give any figure of these). The more important globiferous pedi-
cellariz are unknown; it may well be supposed that they will prove to resemble those of e/ongata.

2 I may expressly note that I do not maintain that Professor Agassiz has known the form established by me as

Br. elongata. In the present connection this is, however, without importance.
3 This, I suppose, must be the character meant; at least I am unable to see what else it could be.

168 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Confluent posterior petals are found in Brzssopsis luzonica, atlantica, elongata, Oldhami and Toxobrissus
pacificus.

Divergent — = >See _ lyrifera, alta, columbaris and n. spt

5 ambulacral plates are included in the subanal fasciole in Brissopses luzonica, Oldhamt, elongata, n. sp.

and 7. pactficus.
4 a ae : — = “Ee _ — = — lyrifera, alta, columbaris and at-

lantica.
The first ambulacral plate reaching within the subanal fasciole the 7th: Brzssopszs elongata, n. sp. and
T. pacificus.
= = a = = = = = - 6th: — lyrifera, alta, atlan-
tica, luzonica, Oldham, columbaris.
The labrum ends off the rst adjoining ambulacral plates: Br. lyrifera, alta, atlantica, luzonica, Oldhamt,
columbaris and n. sp.
— — — - - and — = — : - élongata and T. pacificus.
Globiferous pedicellariz with the valves ending in two long hooks: Br. lyrifera and luzonica.

-- — several short teeth surrounding the terminal opening: 47. alta.

— _ of two kinds, one with long and slender valves, ending in two long hooks,
the other with short valves with several teeth round the terminal
opening: Br. atlantica, columbaris (2? only the slender form known), e/oz-
gata (2 only the slender form known).

_ _ unknown: 7: pacificus, Br. Oldhami and n. sp.

From this summary it is evident that none of the characters give the same grouping of the
species; there is such a mingling of all the characters that it seems quite hopeless to distinguish
different genera among them. If different genera be maintained, they can only be characterised by
one of the characters named above. In that case it would perhaps be the most natural thing to take
the confluent ambulacra as the distinguishing character; but then the name AVeznzza Gray would have
the priority and would have to be revived instead of Zoxodbrissus — the more so as the name 7Zoxo-
brissus can in no case become more than a synonym of Bvissopsis, as Lambert informs me in a
letter. I, for my part, find it preferable to keep all the recent species in one genus, Arzssopszs, instead
of dividing them in a rather artificial way into two (or more) genera.

* The species mentioned above p. 163. The A&rissopsis circosemita described by Agassiz and Clark in their
recently published «Preliminary Report on the Echini collected, in 1902, among the Hawaiian Islands» (Bull. Mus. Comp.
Zool. I, 1907. p. 257) has confluent petals like those of /wsonica and only three ambulacral plates included by the subanal

fasciole. The numero of the first plate reaching within the fasciole is unknown. The labrum is only stated to be nearly
straight; the pedicellariz are unknown.

ADDENDAVET CORRIGENDA.

Porocidaris purpurata W. Th. Several specimens were taken by the «Thor» at 62° 57' Lat. N.
19° 58' Long. W. 957 M. (off South Iceland) in 1903 and at 49° 25’ Lat. N. 12° 20' Long. W. 1270—1180 M.
(off Southwest Ireland) in 1905. — The Porocidaris elegans mentioned by Koehler in «Echinodermes

. du Caudan» (226. p. 8g) is, as Professor Koehler kindly informs me, P. purpurata.

In Part I. p. 173 I have established a var. Zalismant of this species, characterised by the
upper primary radioles having the neck swollen in a fusiform manner and of a fine violet colour. The
specimens taken by the «Ingolf» have not the neck of the spines thus swollen, so that the specimens
from the «Talisman», which show that feature exceedingly developed must necessarily appear to me
at least a distinct variety. The additional material from the «Thor», however, shows that this variety
cannot be upheld. Among these specimens all transitions may be found from such specimens with
the neck of the spines not at all swollen to such with the neck of most of the upper spines consider-
ably swollen, and this swollen part of the spines is of a beautiful violet colour, which sometimes
continues almost to the point of the spines. The specimens upon which the var. Zalismant was
established thus cannot be regarded as more than extraordinary beautiful specimens of P. purpurata.
— For the rest the swelling of the spines has been sufficiently represented by Wyv. Thomson
(« Porcupine»-Echinoidea. Pl. LXI. Figs. 1, 4,6) though he does not mention this peculiar feature in the
‘text. — It may be remarked that the neck is much longer in the upper spines than in those at the
ambitus and on the actinal side.

Tretocidaris annulata Mrtsn. The examination of some specimens of 77. Bartletti (A. Ag.) in
the U. S. National Museum has convinced me that 77. annulata is only a synonym of the latter
species. The description of this species given in the «Blake»-Echinoidea is so very insufficient that
it is scarcely possible to recognise the species thereby, and even the Fig.16. Pl. I] of the «Blake»-Kch.
gives a quite wrong representation of the ambulacra. In the description («Blake»-Echinoidea. p. 10) it
is said: «the poriferous zone is somewhat flexuous, the furrows more distant, and the median ambu-
lacral granulation finer, than in the other West India species of the genus», and the figure shows the
ambulacra closely covered by tubercles, three on each plate, without any naked space in the middle.
But the ambulacra of this species are really as I have described for 77. annzzlata (Part I. p. 17), each
plate bearing only one small tubercle at the lower edge, inside of the primary tubercle, leaving a
broad naked space along the median line. Only in the largest specimen (68) is there in some of

the median ambulacral plates a third small tubercle inside the second tubercle, but still the naked

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 22

ECHINOIDEA. II.

170

median space is very conspicuous. Also the interambulacra are represented in this figure as having
no naked median line, whereas 77. Bartletti really has a conspicuous naked median line in the inter-
ambulacra. — A specimen from the «Blake» St. 272, examined in the Museum of Yale College, also
agrees with the specimens in the U. S. National Museum, not with the said figure Pl. II.16. It thus
seems that the said figure has been made from another species, the figure being otherwise evidently
very carefully drawn. In case the figure really represents 77. Bartlett: correctly Zr. annulata must
be retained as a distinct species, to which the specimens seen by me in the U. 5. National Museum
and the Museum of Yale College would have to be referred.

To the description of the species may be added, besides the peculiar feature already pointed
out in the description of 77. annulata that the radioles are spinous almost exclusively along their
upper side, that the actinal radioles are almost smooth, slightly flattened, but not serrate along the
edge, and not widened towards the point. The primary ambulacral spines are narrow and pointed,
only about half as large as the spines round the radioles, not nearly of the same size as the latter,
as is stated in the description in the «Blake»-Echinoidea. The inner ambulacral spines have a distinct
«ampulla» on the upper edge. The differences in the globiferous pedicellariz of Aartletti and annulata
shown in Part I. Pl. X. Figs. 22, 31 and Figs. 23, 30 are certainly not sufficient for maintaining two
species, the more so as this species has been shown by Agassiz and Clark in the recently published
work on the Cidaride* to vary considerably in regard to the pedicellariz. — As regards the genus
Tretocidaris which is rejected in this latter work I cannot take up the discussion here, but I hope to
have occasion soon to rediscuss the matter.

Hygrosoma Peters (A. Ag.). Several specimens were taken by the «Thor» in 1906 at 49° 20’
Lat. N. 12° 39' Long. W. 1520 M. To this species must also be referred the specimens from the Bay of
3iscay mentioned by Koehler (Echinod. du «Caudan». p. 92) under the name of Phormosoma luculen-
tum, as Professor Koehler informs me in a letter.

Sperosoma Grimaldi Koehler. In Part I (p.77. Pl. IV. Figs. 4,5) was described and figured a
young specimen of this species, 27™™ in diameter. The figures (which were not drawn by myself)
are, however, too little detailed and do not show the structure of the test exactly. As it will be of
considerable interest to get some knowledge of the development of this very interesting genus, I give
here some detailed figures of parts of the test of the specimen mentioned. It would, of course, have
been desirable to have some younger stages, but such have not yet been found, and the present speci-
men is still young enough to be of value for the study of the development of this form.

The ambulacra on the actinal side already show the structure typical of the genus, the larger
primary plate of each set being divided into an outer, smaller, pore-bearing plate and an inner, larger
one without pore; this is the case also with those nearest the actinostome. As is well known the
inner ambulacral plates with the growth of the specimen pass on to the buccal membrane and there
develop into very broad, but short plates, which cover the whole buccal membrane. In the small

specimen 4 such plates, besides the inner one, the true buccal plate, are counted in each series; in a

* A. Agassiz and H. Lyman Clark: Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini. The Cidaride. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool.
XXXIV. 1. 1907. — This work was not received before most of the present work was printed, so that I was unable to take
it into consideration in my introductory remarks.

ECHINOIDEA. I. 171

larger specimen (130™™) I count 7—8 such plates in each series, all being provided with a pore. Of
the inner plate without pore no trace is seen, and since there is otherwise such a plate for each three
pore-bearing plates, this fact must mean that the poreless plate becomes absorbed on passing to the
buccal membrane. On the abactinal side it is seen that the larger primary plate is from the beginning
undivided; but already from the third or fourth the dividing line has appeared, though not easily
discernible before nearer to the ambitus. All the pores are distinct, only that of the inner small plate

distinctly the larger, corresponding to the larger size of the tubefoot of this plate.

Fig. 27. Part of the actinal and abactinal side of the test of Sperosoma Grimaldi, 27™™.

The genital and ocular plates are already separated by small anal plates, except the ocular
plate III which is still in contact with the adjoining genital plates. In younger stages the apical
plates will undoubtedly form a closed ring. The genital pores have not yet appeared; in a specimen
of 4o™ diameter from the Feroe Channel they have appeared, but the genital organs are still very
small. The ocular plates are rather large, with a peculiar radiating striation in the outer part. The
anal area is closely covered by numerous small plates, those at the outer edge being somewhat larger;
the inner ones are narrow and elongated, radially arrauged round the anal opening. — The gills
have not yet appeared in this specimen, but in the specimen of 4o™ they are present, though still
very small.

This species was taken by the «Thor» at 62°57’ Lat. N. 19° 58’ Long. W. 957 M. in 1903 and at
61° 15' Lat. N. 9° 35’ Long. W. goo M. in 1904.

22*

ECHINOIDEA. II.

Phormosoma placenta W.Th. In the «Kchinoidea d. deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition» (p. 126—28)
Doéderlein points out that the specimens of Phormosoma placenta from the Davis Strait as well as
that figured in the «Blake »-Echinoidea differ from the specimens from the European side of the
Atlantic, in having fewer abactinal plates in the ambulacra and interambulacra; in the European form,
the typical placenta, there are IO—II interambulacral and 14—16 ambulacral plates in each series, in
the specimens from the Davis Strait there are only 7—8 interambulacral and 9—10 ambulacral plates.
The latter form is thus maintained as a distinct species, P%. szgsbez A. Ag., though it is suggested that
on examination of a richer material it will, together with the «species» from the Indian Ocean: PA.
adenicum, indicum and bursarium, prove to be only a variety of Px. placenta. This suggestion is no
doubt correct, as regards Px. sigsbet at least. Several specimens before me from the Faroe Channel
(«Michael Sars» 1902) as well as some from the «Thor» are quite intermediate as regards the number
of abactinal plates, so that it is impossible to decide thereby to which form they should be referred.

I give here some instances. The tridentate pedicellariz in these

Sein) enn or ratte specimens, however, are of the slender form, the character derived
-rambulacra Ambulacrs

Somm ee 3 es "D from the form of these pedicellariz, viz. narrow in the typical pla-

oc ae centa, broad in segsbet (comp. Pl. XII. Figs. 2—3 and 7 of the Part I)

83 — 8—9 13 thus apparently being more constant. To distinguish Ph. Szesber

es a ee ae as a separate species from f/acenfa seems then scarcely justified,

but it may be correct to maintain it as a variety besides the typical
form of Pk. placenta, the latter belonging to the European side of the Atlantic, the var. szgsbez to the
American side, from the Davis Strait to the West Indies.

Mr. R. T. Jackson has called my attention to the fact that in the figure of a young Phormo-
soma placenta given in the Siam-Echinoidea I. (p. 54) the teeth are represented as situated in the
ambulacra. I take the occasion here to correct the error, which I can scarcely account for. The teeth
are distinctly interambulacral also in the smallest specimens, as might, of course, be expected.

Llypstechinus coronatus Mrtsn. Mr. R. T. Jackson likewise suggests to me that the plate
outside the buccal plates, between the terminal plates, shown in Pl. VII. Fig.6 of Part I ought not to
be interpreted as the basal (genital) plate as I have done (p. 89), but as the first interambulacral plate.
Mr. Jackson is right in this suggestion. I have examined the specimen figured there and find that
the genital plates are also present, and easily discernible, when examining the specimen from the
abactinal side, so there is no excuse for the error.

Echinus gracilis. In the «Echinoderms of Ballynakill and Bofin Harbours, Co. Galway and of
the Deep water off the West Coast of Ireland» by Stanley W. Kemp (Ann. Rep. Fish., Ireland.
1902—3. Pt. II. App. VI. 1905) is named (p. 199) «Zchinus gracilis (Dib. and Kor.).» As Diiben and
Koren have described no Lchinus gracilis and the Ech. gracilis A. Ag. was hitherto known only from
the American side of the Atlantic, I wrote to Mr. Stanley Kemp about the matter, and he informed
me that it was an error for Heh. elegans Dib. Kor. I take the occasion to correct the error here to
prevent introducing in literature Ach. gracilis as occurring on the European side of the Atlantic.

Echinus esculentus I, The variety of this species mentioned in Part I. p. 162, and further

mentioned by Appell6éf (Havbundens Dyreliv. Norges Fiskerier. I. Norsk Havfiske, 1. Del. Havforsk-

ECHINOIDEA. II. 173

ning og Havfiske. 1906. p. 82) certainly deserves to be named as a distinct variety; I propose to name
it var. fuscus n. var. As pointed out (loc. cit.) it differs from the typical form in the lower form of
the test and in the uniformly red coloured spines, the spines of the typical form being generally violet
at the point, white in the lower part (occasionally the spines are green). According to Appeiléf the
spines of this variety may vary considerably in colour, from beautifully cinnabar-red to green; in all
the specimens seen by me they are uniformly red. The spines are somewhat longer than is generally
the case in the typical form. The pedicellariz do not show any differences from those of the typical
form. The measurements given here show the considerable difference in height between the variety

and the typical form, though there is certainly some variation in this regard also.

Diameter Height Longest spines
Typical form.... 31™™ goin S5nm
WaT JUSCUS tater: ayaa 16™™ IO—r1I™™

This variety seems to be found exclusively in the North Sea. The specimens in our Museum
are from the following localities: 55° 30’ N. 1° EK. 75 M., 56° 40’ N. 2°16’. 73 M. and 57°55'N. 1° 20’ E.
105 M. — It is evidently the same form which is mentioned by Th. Scott (Notes on some Scottish
Echinodermata. Ann. Scott. Nat Hist. 1892. p.49), who also gives a figure of the naked test (PI. II.
Fig. 1). He does not mention the colour of the spines. — In a specimen of this variety, which I exa-
mined in the Berlin Museum, the spines on the buccal plates were partly transformed into sphzeridiz,
all transitional stages being found between common spines and true spheeridie. In my paper «Echi-
noderms from East Greenland» (Medd. om Gronland. XXIX. 1903. p.77—78) I have taken the occasion

to mention that and given some figures thereof.

In the beautiful work of J. Lambert: «Description des Echinides fossiles de la Province de
Barcelone. II—III. Echinides des Terrains miocéne et pliocéne»,t which I received after the printing
of the main part of the present work, so that it could not be taken into consideration there, some
important critical remarks are given, on which a few words may be said here.

The genus Parechinus, established by me in Part I of this work for «2chinus» miliaris, micro-
tuberculatus and angulosus, is not accepted by Lambert, who maintains that the name Psammechinus
must be retained for this group, whereas the name Avapesws Holmes has to be used for the group
to which I have limited the genus Psammechinus, viz. P. vartegatus (or Blainvilled Desm., as Lam-
bert shows to be its right name), semztuberculatus ete. Lambert’s reasons for maintaining this are,
that the older authors have taken mzliaris as the type of the genus Psammechinus, and that vartegatus
(Blainvillei) and the species of that group are not quite in accordance with the original diagnosis.
To this may be remarked that none of the previous authors have understood the real characters of

the genera of the Achimide and allied groups.2 I was the first to give exact diagnoses of these

t Mém. Soc. Géol. de France. XIV. 1906.

2 Even Lambert himself has not the right conception of these genera. «Ce qui distingue Psammechinus», he says
(p. 67. note), «ce n’est pas seulement la présence de plaquettes imbriquées sur la membrane buccale, c’est la forme de son
péristome plus large, subdecagonal, c’est surtout lhomogénéité de ses majeures ambulacraires, toutes tuberculiféres, tandis
que chez Zchinus adulte les majeures alternent, successivement tuberculiféres et granuliféres, comme celles de Toxopneustes»-
This is not correct; several species of Echinus, e.g. elegans, Alexandri a. 0. have a primary tubercle on every ambulacral
plate — but scarcely anybody, who knows these species in nature, not from literature alone, would think of excluding them

7 ECHINOIDEA. IL
174 ;

genera and limit them to the species really belonging together, as shown by the combined char-
acters of the test and the microscopical features of pedicellarize and spicules. I therefore thought and
still think that I was justified in retaining for the first group included under the subgen. Psamm-
echinus in Agassiz & Desor’s «Catalogue raisonné» the name Psammechinus, neglecting the prev-
ious authors’ rather confused use of the name. It is true that the expression <point de fortes entailles
buecales» in the original diagnosis does not suit well with P. varzegatus, — when large specimens are
considered. But if we take specimens of medium size (and such were, I think, the specimens cited in
the said work) the diagnosis suits fairly well, the mouth-slits being really comparatively small. The
fact that Professor D6derlein has accepted the name /arechimus also makes me confident that I
was right in taking vartegatus (Blainvillet) as the type of Psammechinus. In the other case it is right
that the name Anapesus would have to be used for the latter genus; but it seems to me that, if
there is no necessity for reviving such a rather unfortunate name, it ought not to be done. And though
it is certainly no absolute claim that the first named species in a group has to retain the name of
this group in case of further subdivision (and, of course, in case that none of the species are designated
as the type) it seems to me a natural thing to do so, and in any case, the author who first charac-
terises the divisions of the old group is entitled to do so.

On the genus Zrissopsis Lambert has given a careful study (p. 104—8), the results of which,
at first, appear to differ very much from the results of my studies. In reality they do not differ so
much, only Lambert has, from want of sufficient material of the recent species, been led to a wrong
interpretation of «Brissus lyrifer» and thereby induced to use the names incorrectly. As the true

Brissus lyrifer> lambert takes the form described above as Lrissopsis atlantica, the «elongated type
of Lrissopsts lyrifera» of Agassiz. ‘The form described above as Lr. alta, the «globular type of Br.
lyrifera» of Agassiz, Lambert identifies with «Bvissus pulvinatus» including within this species also
the form from the Northern Seas, the true Ayzssopsis lyrifera. These erroneous premises given (— and
from the study of literature alone it would perhaps scarcely be possible to get any other result —),
the conclusion is quite right, that Brzssopses lyrifera and pulvinatus must be sharply distinguished. If
the right names are put in, viz. Gr. atlantica instead of Lambert's &r. lyrifera and Br. lyrifera and
alta instead of Lambert’s Br. pulvinatus, it will be seen that Lambert’s and my opinion are thus
far quite in accordance as regards these forms. Iambert refers them to different subgenera, viz. the
true lyrifera (his pulvinatus) to the subgenus Zrissoma Pomel, the Lr. atlantica (his Br. lyrifera) to-
gether with Sr. duzonica to the subgenus Avecnia Gray. The latter name, however, ought to be
regarded only as a synonym of Brissopszs. This name was first used for the fossil species By. elegans,
with its petals of the same form as in /uzonica etc. Lambert maintains Brissopsis and Kleinia as
two subgenera, distinguished by the character that one has the subanal fasciole «en anneau simple»

from the genus Zchinus, The main character of the genus Parechinus (lambert’s Psammechinus) is to be found in the
peculiar globiferous pedicellarie. But Lambert, the eminent specialist in fossil Echinoids, is not inclined to recognize the
microscopical characters, which cannot be used for the fossil forms. I think, howeyer, that I am right in maintaining that
the recent species, which alone can be fully studied, must form the basis of our knowledge of the characters important for
classification. If microscopical structures like spicules and pedicellaria prove to be of the highest importance for distinguishing
the recent forms, we are certainly not entitled to ignore them on account of their not being preserved in the fossil forms.
We must, on the contrary, acknowledge that the fossil forms are thus far not preserved in a condition fit for complete study.

‘It is well worth emphasizing that in the European Seas only one form of Brissopsis occurs, viz. that with diy-
ergent petals, so that there cannot be the slightest doubt of the interpretation of the «Brissus lyrifer» of Forbes.

ECHINOIDEA. II. 1

“I
wn

the other has it «en anneau appendiculé par deux branches latérales», viz. the anal branches. Now
these anal fascioles are of very unconstant character, as repeatedly pointed out above — (they may
also occur in the true By. lyrifera), and it is evidently impossible to ascribe to them any great
systematic importance. But then it follows that both Zoxoérissus and Kleinia are synonyms only of
Lrissopsis in its original meaning. If we have to subdivide the genus Dréssopsis in its wide meaning,

it must then be as follows:

Subgenus Lressopsis s. str. (Syn. Toxobrissus, Kleinia.) Type Br. elegans; Br. luzonica, atlantica, Old-
hamt, circosemita.

—- Lrissoma. Vype Lr. lyrifera; Br. alta, columbaris.

Further Lr. pacifica and elongata would make a separate subgenus, and perhaps one more
separate subgenus would have to be established for the new species mentioned above, in which the
first of the plates included within the subanal fasciole is the 7th as in facifica and elongata. How-
ever, as pointed out above (p. 168), it seems to me the most natural thing to keep them all together
in one genus on account of the peculiar intermingling of all the more important characters.

Lambert further includes under Lrzssopsis as subgenera: Plesiaster Pomel and Diplodetus
Schluter, which have the apex ethmophract. Though it is beyond doubt that the ethmolytic condi-
tion of the apex in the true Arissofszs has developed from an ethmophract condition, it seems to me
inappropriate to unite these different types in the same genus. I do not see, why we should be un-
able to keep in mind their close relation without uniting them into the same genus. The fact that
Hemiaster batnensis shows all transitional stages from an ethmophract to an ethmolytic condition can
scarcely justify uniting Pleszaster and Duiplodetus with PBrissopsis. (I am not aware that such trans-
itional forms are known in these genera.)

Also the genus Scfzzaster is made the object of a careful analysis by Lambert. Sch. canali-
ferus is made the type of a distinct genus, with the character of the pores of the anterior ambulacrum
in double series. The rest of the old genus Schzzaster is subdivided into the two (recent) subgenera:
Paraster, with 4 genital pores (P. gibberulus), and Brisaster with 2 genital pores (Br. fragilis, lacu-
nosus). — This subdivision again is the result of the lack of sufficient material of the recent forms.
If Lambert had had occasion to make a careful comparative study of the recent forms, he would
undoubtedly have seen that it is quite irrational to separate Sch. canaliferus as a distinct genus from
lacunosus, orbignyanus etc. on account of the single feature of the double pores in the anterior ambu-
lacrum; these species otherwise agree so closely in all other features that it is evidently quite artificial
to separate them into different genera. Further, to unite /acunosus and fragilis in the same subgenus
can in no way be justifiable; I trust I have shown that beyond doubt (p. 120-123); probably Lambert
has not seen these species himself, otherwise he could scarcely have come to this conclusion. (The fact
alone that he characterises the subgenus Avzsaster with type species: Br. fragilis as having two
genital pores seems to show this.)

I have above repeatedly alluded to the opinion of Lambert, that the names Spatangus and
Schizaster are not rightly used in the way generally accepted. Here he finally makes the change:

Schizaster canaliferus is made the type of the genus Sfatangus (the former genus Sfpatangus is called

ECHINOIDEA. II.

176

Prospatangus), the name Schizaster is retained for the rest of the species of this group. Further
Echinocardium is restored for (AZoira) atropos. — I may refer to my remarks above, p. 132, regarding
these unfortunate changes.

It is, indeed, quite discouraging with all the changes of the generic names, and it seems im-
possible to reach an arrangement which can be unanimously accepted. I think there is only one way
to get out of this almost insupportable condition of the nomenclature, viz. if all the Echinologists of
the present time meet to form an international committee and come to an agreement regarding all
the names of Echinoidea, one by one, and then publish a complete list of all the names finally adopted,
with their synonyms and complete history. From the date of publication of such a list the endless and
annoying discussions and the perplexing changes would cease — they will scarcely cease before. Per-
haps it would be necessary to do so also for other difficult groups; for a first trial the Echini would

be an excellent group, as the number of species and names is not so exceedingly great.

Geographical distribution of the Echinoidea of the
Northern Atlantic.

The revision of the Echinoidea of the Northern Atlantic given in this work leads to some
zoogeographical results which differ not inconsiderably from those laid down in the careful and
extensive studies on the geographical distribution of Echinoidea in the works of Professor Agassiz,
the differences mainly resulting from the many corrections in the interpretation of the species and
genera of Echinoids, not from a disagreement in the principles and general treatment of the zoogeo-
graphy of this group of animals. In fact, I quite agree with Ortmann (Grundztige der marinen Tier-
geographie. 1896) in regarding Professor Agassiz’ zoogeographical work on the Echinoids as «den
Gipfelpunkt der bisherigen tiergeographischen Forschung, wenigstens auf dem Gebiete des marinen
Litorals» (p.6). — Quite recently Professor Déderlein has treated the distribution of the arctic and
subarctic Echinoidea (Arktische Seeigel. Fauna Arctica. IV. 2. 1905) very carefully, but in a way which
differs considerably, and, as it seems to me, not fortunately, from that in which Agassiz treats the
matter. My views thereof are far more in accordance with those of Professor Agassiz.

The study of the geographical distribution of the Atlantic species of Echini leads us to recognize
the following regions or districts: The Arctic littoral and abyssal, the European boreal, the Me.
diterranean, the West African tropical littoral and the East American littoral; further three
Atlantic Deep-Sea regions: the European, West African and East American. Each of these
regions is characterised by some species peculiar to it and by the absence of a number of species
occurring in the adjoining regions.

What limits these different regions is not the latitude and longitude, but the physical conditions
of the sea, above all the temperature. To take the Polar circle or a line from the North Point of
New Foundland to the point of the Norwegian Coast which lies on the Polar circle as the limit of
the arctic or subarctic region, as is done in Déderlein’s work, is arbitrary; it will scarcely be pos-
sible to produce scientific reasons for this limitation of the regions, which leads to such results as
to count e. g. Phormosoma placenta to the Arctic Fauna. — Just as the marine fauna of the Ber-
mudas really belongs to the tropical West Indian Fauna, though the islands are situated on 32° Lat. N.,
the Gulf Stream making the physical conditions suitable for tropical animals, in the same way the
fauna of the warm area of the Atlantic proceeds far towards the North, and conversely, the arctic fauna
far South, if the conditions are only suitable. Along the European side of the Atlantic the Gulf
Stream, as is well known, proceeds along the Coast of Norway even to the White Sea and produces
such physical conditions as to enable forms of the warm area to proceed to the North Cape, 71° Lat.N,,
whereas on the American side the cold Labrador Stream passes far towards the South, enabling the

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 23

178 ECHINOIDEA. II.
78

arctic fauna to proceed to Cape Cod, on 42° Lat. N., the latitude of Northern Spain. The study of the
geographical distribution of marine animals therefore must rest on the study of the physical conditions
of the sea.

It is a natural thing that it is upon the whole impossible to fix the limits of the different
regions very definitely. Most species pass over the limits, and very few species occur exclusively
within the limits of one region, whereas very many species are common to two or more regions.
There is thus generally a rather extensive area between the adjoining districts, where the species
peculiar to each district méet and intermingle, the fauna thus being composed of elements from the
two adjoining regions, without any forms peculiar to it. Such areas are e. g. the tract from the
Channel to Morocco on the European side and from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras on the American
side of the Atlantic. — It is the same with the depth-limits of the regions. Most of the species
have a very extensive range in depth, several of them ranging even from quite shallow water down
to the great abysses (though it is generally easy to decide if a species is mainly littoral or abyssal)
The bathymetrical limits of the regions must then necessarily look somewhat arbitrary, from a
systematic point of view. But, on the other hand, Agassiz may thus far be fully justified in saying
(«Challenger»-Echinoidea. p. 222) that «the divisions into littoral, continental and abyssal or oceanic are
not arbitrary; they represent in the present state of our knowledge of the depths of the oceans, bathy-
metrical lines of great physical importance. The littoral fauna extends over that shallow area of the
shores which is merely the extension under water of the shores themselves (to 100 or 150 fathoms);
the continental line represents the extent to which we may fairly assume that the lines of continents
have been modified, the limits within which probably subsidence and elevation as affecting continental
masses, or rather their shores, have taken place, to 450 or 500 fathoms, while the third region beyond
this, that which has been called abyssal or oceanic, undoubtedly represents those large areas of the
ocean floor which have remained unaffected through long geological periods».

In Part I (p. 28) I have distinguished between the littoral belt, the sublittoral, archibenthal and
abyssal belts. The littoral is reckoned from o—ca. 50 fathoms, the sublittoral from ca. 50—ca. 300
fathoms, the archibenthal from ca. 300—ca. 1500 fathoms, and depths greater than 1500 fathoms are
called abyssal. These divisions are certainly not so fortunate as those maintained by Agassiz, and I
therefore give them up and follow Agassiz, recognizing only three main bathymetrical divisions.
The littoral region I prefer to limit to the 100 fathoms; the next region then goes from 100 to 500
fathoms, viz. the archibenthal region (— this name seems to me preferable to the name «continentals,
which has also another meaning in Zoogeography), and the depths below 500 fathoms make the abyssal
region, — There is, however, no reason for maintaining these depth regions for all the districts. The
European boreal and the Mediterranean regions have in so far the same faunistic character throughout
their whole bathymetrical extension that not a single species is characteristic for the greater depths
alone, below the roo fathoms line (except Spatangus Raschi, which is, however, probably only an im-
migrant into the European boreal region). The only difference is that the greater depths in these
regions are much poorer in Echinoids than the littoral regions, several species being strictly littoral,
as far as hitherto known. ‘This especially holds good for the Mediterranean. — In a more detailed

account of each region there is reason for distinguishing between the strictly littoral, sublittoral

ECHINOIDEA. II. 179
regions etc, as is done excellently by Appell6f (Op. cit.); but in this more summary review of the
main regions there is no reason for entering on these minor subdivisions.

It is the merit of Professor H. F. E. Jungersen to have shown definitely that also in the
deep-sea separate regions may be distinguished. Already on the Expedition of the «Lightning» in
1868 Wyville Thomson was struck with the physical and faunistic differences in the Faroe-Channel
between the «cold area» and the «warm area» («Depths of the Sea»); the discovery of the submarine
ridge across the Faroe-Channel thus far explained the fact that two so different areas could exist
close by one another without a mixing up of their characters. But the «Ingolf»-Expedition brought
evidence for the highly interesting fact that the whole of the deep basin of the sea North of
Iceland (the «Norwegian Sea») forms a separate deep-sea region, distinguished bv its low (negative)
bottom-temperature and by a peculiar deep-sea fauna, quite distinct from that of the Atlantic deep sea
South of Iceland. A submarine ridge across the Denmark Strait, from Greenland to Iceland, with a
depth of only ca. 300 fathoms, another ridge between Iceland and the Faroe Islands with about the
same depth, and finally the ridge across the Faroe Channel (330 fathoms) limit this large cold area
from the deep sea of the Atlantic South of Iceland, where the bottom-temperature is considerably
higher (the warm area). The «cold area» of Wyville Thomson is only the southernmost extension
of the large cold deep-sea area of the Norwegian Sea. — Probably also other parts of the deep sea

will prove to form definite regions; but our knowledge is still insufficient to state that definitely.

The Arctic littoral region comprises the whole of the Arctic Sea along the Northern Coasts
of Europe, Asia and America, being thus circumpolar; it extends towards the South as far as the ice-
cold polar water extends. On the European side the Gulf Stream restricts its limits very much, so
that it does not pass beyond a line from about the South end of Nova Zemlja to the South end of
Spitsbergen, except along the Northern Coast of Russia, where it proceeds to the White Sea. All
Greenland and the North American Coast down to Cape Cod belongs to this region. — Only two
species of Echini occur in this region, viz. Strongylocentrotus dribachiensts and Echinarachnius parma,
the latter only at the American Coast; both of them proceed far towards the South, beyond the Arctic
region, Str. drébachiensts to the Channel on the European, to New Jersey on the American side,
Echinarach. parma to Chesapeake Bay. As pointed out by Déderlein (Op. cit.) both of them probably
must have come from the Northern Pacific, wandering towards the East from the Behrings Strait. While
Echinarachnius parma has still not reached beyond the American Coast, not even to Greenland, S¢r.
drébachtensis has reached as far as Taimyr on the Siberian Coast; between Taimyr and the Behring
Strait it has not been found. It is thus not strictly cirecumpolar. — It would be very interesting to
learn if Echinarachnius parma does really occur along the whole North Coast of North America. It
is known as far North as Labrador (Belle Isle Strait) on the Atlantic Coast, as far as Point Belcher
on the Alaskan Coast. The fact that it does not occur at Greenland might perhaps indicate that it
is not found along the whole of the North American Coast. In that case the explanation of its
occurring in two isolated places, on the Atlantic and on the Pacific Coast of North America, would

probably have to be sought for in the oscillations of the climate after the Ice Period. It has been

1 Fra «Ingolf»-Expeditionen. Bemerkninger om Dybhavsfaunaen og dens Fordeling i de nordlige Have. Geografisk
Tidsskrift, Bd, XIV. 1897.

iS)
w

180 ECHNIOIDEA. II.

shown by Ad. S. Jensen? that in postglacial time Greenland has had a period of milder climate, when
forms such as Zirphea crispata occurred along the Greenland Coast; this bivalve now has its Nor-
thern limit at the Gulf of St. Lawrence — as seems also to be the case with the Atlantic Achinarach-
nius parma. During that milder period the extension of this species along the Northern Coast of
America from the Pacific to the Atlantic may have taken place (— or it may even have taken place
before the Ice Period —). Until a careful zoological exploration of the waters to the North of America
has been undertaken, it is impossible to state anything more definitely about this question.

Echinus esculentus also occurs at Spitsbergen, according to Liitken2 This statement is reg-
arded as very doubtful by Michailovskij. In any case this occurrence would not justify counting
Ech. esculentus among the species of the Arctic littoral region. The Gulf Stream still makes itself
felt even at the Southwestern end of Spitsbergen, which would account for the presence of this species
here. It will certainly not be found at the East and North Coast, to which the Gulf Stream does
not reach.

The Arctic abyssal region comprises the deep basin of the sea to the North of Iceland, where
the bottom temperature is negative. It is limited from the deep-sea of the Atlantic South of Iceland by
the three submarine ridges: one passing over the Denmark Strait from Iceland to Greenland, another
from Iceland to the Faroe Islands and the third from the Faroe Islands to the Hebrides. The north-
ern limits of this region are still unknown. — Only one species of Echini occurs in this region, viz.
Pourtalesia Jeffreyst. Jt is true that “chinus Alexandri and Spatangus Raschi have been recorded a
single time each from a considerable depth and negative bottom temperature off Norway; but these
cases are undoubtedly quite exceptional, the former species decidedly belonging to the Atlantic deep-
sea Fauna, the latter to the boreal and the Atlantic Fauna.

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst has been recorded several times from the Atlantic, both the European and
the American side, but, as has been shown above, this is due to a confusion with the nearly related
Pourt. Wandelt. In reality Pourt. Jeffreyst is known only from the arctic abyssal region. Its bathy-
metrical extension is rather great, from 125—1300 fathoms; but it scarcely ever occurs where the
bottom temperature is positive.

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst is nearest related to P. Wandeli, the species widely distributed in the

warm area» of the Atlantic Deep Sea; it may be said with certainty that P. Jeffreys? has been devel-
oped from a form very much like this species (perhaps the ancestor of both P. Wandeli and Jeffreyst),
which was probably distributed over the whole of the Northern Atlantic, thus north of the ridges also,
at a time when a more uniform climate prevailed there. When the recent conditions developed the speci-
mens to the North of the ridges were thus isolated and developed into a separate species. Or perhaps
the ancestor of the species wandered into the northern region, after its physical conditions had become

like those now prevailing there. This, of course, cannot be decided; but in any case P. Seffreyst. was

Ad. S. Jensen. On the Mollusca of East Greenland. I. Lamellibranchiata. With an Introduction on Greenlands
fossil Mollusc-Fauna from the quaternary time. Meddelelser om Gronland. Vol, XXIX. 1905.

2 Chr, Liitken. Et Bidrag til Kundskab om Spitzbergens Echinoderm-Fauna. (Vidensk. Medd. Naturh. Foren.
Kobenhayn. 1571. p. 305.)

) M. Michailoysklj. Zoologische Ergebnisse der Russischen Expedition nach Spitsbergen. Echinodermen. (Ann.
Mus. Zool. de l'Acad. Imp. St. Petersbourg. VII. 1902.)

ECHINOIDEA. II. IsI

certainly developed here and appears as a typical example of a species which has developed in an
isolated locality with very special physical conditions. It is quite in accordance with this that P. /e/
preysi is among the most specialized species of the group of Pourtalesize to which it belongs.

The European boreal region comprises the Atlantic littoral regions of Europe, from the
Channel to Northern Norway (East-Finmark), Iceland, Faroe-Islands and Great Britain; including, of
course, both the North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Baltic, as far as Echinoderms occur there,
further the large plateau along the Norwegian Coast as far out as to where the negative bottom
temperature occurs (the arctic abyssal region), which is very nearly coincident with the 500 fa-
thoms line.

The littoral tract from the Channel to Gibraltar might thus far be reckoned to the boreal
region, as some of the species characteristic of that region also occur here; but on the other hand
several of the species characteristic of the Mediterranean region extend along this tract towards the
Channel and the Southern Coasts of Britain. Thus two faunas meet here and intermingle, this tract
representing, in fact, a transitional region. It is by the Malacologists generally called the Lusi-
tanian region or province; from an echinological point of view there is no reason to accept it as a
distinct region.

The following species are known from this region:

Dorocidaris papillata Paracentrotus lividus Spataugus Raschi
Parechinus miliaris Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis Echinocardium flavescens
Echinus esculentus Spheerechinus granularis — pennatifidum
— acutus Echinocyamus pusillus — cordatum
— elegans Hemiaster expergitus ~- mediterraneum
— tenuispinus Brisaster fragilis Brissopsis lyrifera.
— Alexandri Spatangus purpureus

Of these species the following are characteristic of this region: Parechinus miliaris, Echinus
esculentus, tenuispinus and Echinocardium pennatifidum. The first named extends to the African Coast
and perhaps a little into the Mediterranean. Lch. esculentus probably has its southern limit in the
Bay of Biscay. (The statements of its occurrence in the Mediterranean, at South Africa and Brazil
are probably all erroneous). Zchinus tenwispinus is hitherto known only from the Porcupine Bank
and the Shetlands, Echinocardium pennatifidum is known from the Faroe Islands to the Gulf of Gas-
cogne. (The statement of its occurrence in the Mediterranean has been shown above to be erroneous,
and probably also the statement of its occurrence at the American Coast will turn out to be due to
a confusion with another species). That these four species have originated within this region seems
beyond doubt.

The following species are common to the boreal and the Mediterranean region: Echinus acutus,
Echinocyamus pusillus, Spatangus purpureus, Echinocardium flavescens, cordatum and Brissopsis lyrt-
fera. Most of them show a tendency towards developing a special Mediterranean variety, but the
characters are still upon the whole not very prominent. All these species have also been recorded

from the American Coast, but with the exception of Zchinocardium cordatum, which seems to be

182 ECHINOIDEA. IL.

almost cosmopolitan, the statements are, as far as I have been able to ascertain, all founded on wrong
determinations. (Of Zchinocardium flavescens I have not myself seen American specimens, but the
descriptions point towards the American form representing a distinct species; comp. above p. 136).

One species, Spatangus Raschi, is common to the boreal and the European and West African
Atlantic regions. The following species have a wide distribution in the whole of the Northern At-
lantic: Dorocidaris papillata, Echinus Alexandri, elegans, Brisaster fragilis and Hemzaster expergitus.
Two of these species have as yet only been found a single time in the boreal region, viz. Echinus
Alexandri and Hemiaster expergitus, and are perhaps only occasional visitors there. Dorocidaris pa-
pillata, Echinus elegans and Brisaster fragilis are widely distributed on the Norwegian plateau, but
they must evidently be regarded as intruders from the Atlantic region, which may perhaps also hold
good for Spatangus Raschi. To suppose that they should have originated in the comparatively small
area along the Norwegian Coast and from there have spread over most of the Northern Atlantic
(Dorocidaris papillata also to the Mediterranean) would not seem very reasonable, whereas on sup-
posing their home to be the Atlantic region their extension over the Norwegian Coast-Plateau becomes
easily intelligible on account of the considerable influence of the Gulf Stream there. One of them at
least, Dorocidaris papillata, has pelagic larvee, which must facilitate the spreading over wide areas.

One of the species occurring in the boreal region, Strongylocentrotus dribachtensis, is beyond
doubt an intruder from the Arctic littoral region. In the same way Paracentrotus lividus and Spher-
echinus granularis, which occur in the southernmost part of the regions are intruders from the Medi-
terranean and West African regions.

On the American side there is no region corresponding to the European boreal region. ‘The
Arctic region here proceeds so far southwards and the tropical region so far northwards that there is
no room for another region. The short tract from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras forms an intermediate
zone, where the faunas of the two regions meet and intermingle, corresponding to the Lusitanian dis-
trict on the European side of the Atlantic.

The Mediterranean region comprises, besides the whole Mediterranean Sea, the littoral zone
of West Africa down to about Cape Bojador, the Canaries, Madeira and the Azores. On account of
our very insutficient knowledge of the littoral fauna of West Africa it is for the present impossible to
give the southern limit of this region more exactly. Perhaps it ought really to go down to Cape
Verde; it seems, however, more probable that the tract from Cape Verde towards Cape Bojador will
prove to be the intermediate zone between this and the West African tropical region.

It may be concluded from the fact that the connection between the Mediterranean and the
Atlantic through the Gibraltar Strait is of comparatively very recent origin, that several forms of its
present fauna of Echinoids have immigrated from the Atlantic. In accordance with this is the fact
that no true deep-sea Echinoids are found in the Mediterranean; they have not been able to pass
the Gibraltar Strait, where the greatest depth is only about 300 M,, as is also the case with the cold
water from the deeper layers of the Atlantic, the bottom temperature in the Mediterranean being 13°
even to the greatest depths, more than 4ooo M.

The following species of Echinoids are known from this region:

ECHINOIDEA. I. 183

Dorocidaris papillata Echinus acutus Spatangus purpureus

Cidaris affinis — melo Echinocardium flavescens

Diadema antillarum Paracentrotus lividus — intermedium

Centrostephanus longispinus Sphzrechinus granularis — mediterraneum

Arbacia pustulosa _ roseus = cordatum

Genocidaris maculata Echinocyamus pusillus Brissus unicolor

Parechinus miliaris Neolampas rostellata Brissopsis lyrifera
microtuberculatus Schizaster canaliferus Metalia Coste.

The Mediterranean region is characterized by the following species: Centrostephanus longispinus,
Arbacia pustulosa, Paracentrotus lividus, Spherechinus granularis, roseus, Parechinus microtuberculatus,
Echinus melo, Schizaster canaliferus, Echinocardium mediterraneum, tntermedium and Metalia Coste.
Three of these species: Schzzaster canaliferus, Echinocardium intermedium and Metalia Coste are
hitherto known only from the Mediterranean (SAphe@rechinus roseus it is better to leave out of consi-
deration, as its specific value is not beyond doubt). Whereas LZchinocardium intermedium may well
turn out to occur also outside the Mediterranean, being not so easily distinguished, this can scarcely
be the case with Schizaster canaliferus! and Metalia Coste, since they are so very characteristic that
it seems hardly possible that they can have been overlooked. It seems then certain that these species
have developed in the Mediterranean in earlier times, before the recent conditions of this sea were
arrived at, and are thus survivors from its previous fauna. This is, at all events, the case with Sch.
canaliferus, which is known as fossil from the Miocene of Italy2 Mazzetti further records as occur-
ring in the Miocene of Italy: Sfatangus purpureus and Lrissopsis lyrifera, as also Echinolampas de-
pressa, now known only from the American side of the Atlantic. On the other hand no Echinus-species
is recorded; it thus seems that Echinus acutus and melo must have immigrated from the Atlantic into
the Mediterranean after the formation of the Straits of Gibraltar. — The recent immigration through
the Suez Canal from the Red Sea of /eterocentrotus mamillatus recorded by Gauthier (160. p. 403)
and Ludwig (Echinodermen d. Mittelmeeres. p. 556) is shown by Fourtau (Contribution a l'étude des
Echinides vivant dans le Golfe de Suez. p- 414) to be very improbable.

Centrostephanus longispinus is not known to occur outside this region, whereas the rest of the
species named above proceed into the adjoining regions: Paracentrotus lividus, Spherechinus granu-
laris, Echinus melo and Echinocardium mediterraneum more or less into the boreal region, Ardacza
pustulosa, Spherechinus granularis, Parechinus microtuberculatus and Echinus melo into the West
African tropical region, at least to the Cape Verde Islands. Finally Arbacia pustulosa also occurs at the
Brazilian Coast. These species must probably all have originated in this region — and probably in the
Atlantic part of it— from which they have then spread more or less widely into the adjoining regions.

The following species are common to the Mediterranean region and the East American region:
Dorocidaris papillata, Cidaris affints, Diadema antillarum, Arbacia pustulosa, Genocidaris maculata,
Neolompas rostellata, Echinocardium cordatum and Brissus unicolor3 Of these Diadema antillarum

t The record of the occurrence of this species at the American Coast of the Atlantic is caused by a confusion with
Sch. orbignyanus, as has been shown above, p. I17.

2 Mazzetti: Catalogi degli Echinidi fossili della collezione Mazzetti. Mem. Acad. Modena. 2. Ser. XI. 1895.
3 The occurrence of Echinocardium flavescens at the American Coast is not beyond doubt.

184 ECHINOIDEA. I.

undoubtedly has its home in the East American region, but has crossed the Atlantic, its pelagic larvee
having been transported by the streams. (It is true that the larva of this species is still unknown,
but the occurrence of the species on both sides of the Atlantic makes it almost beyond doubt that it
must have pelagic larve). <Arébacia pustulosa, on the other hand, has its home in the Mediterranean
region and has from there crossed the Atlantic to the Brazilian Coast. The course of the Gulf-Stream
from Florida to the Azores, and of the Northern Passat-Stream from West Africa to Brazil and the
West Indies naturally explains this extension of the two species in opposite directions. Echinocardium
cordatum probably also has its home at the European side of the Atlantic, where its main distribution
is; for the rest of the species: Dorocidaris papillata, Cidaris affinis, Genocidaris maculata, Neolampas
rostellata and Brissus unicolor it is scarcely possible to state more precisely, where their original home
must be sought for, as they seem to be equally widely distributed in both regions, the first of them
even ranging over the whole of the Northern Atlantic.

The rest of the species occurring in this region, viz. Parechinus miliaris, Echinus acutus, Echt-
cyamus pusillus, Spatangus purpureus, Echinocardium flavescens and Brissopsis lyrifera are common to
this region and the European boreal region. Parechinus miliaris is certainly only an intruder from
the boreal region. The fact that Spatangus purpureus and Brissopsis lyrifera are found already in the
Miocene of Italy makes it rather probable that their original home is in the Mediterranean, from
which they have extended over a considerable part of the Atlantic, though probably not to the Amer-
ican side. For Echinus acutus, Echinocyamus pusillus and Echinocardium flavescens it is scarcely pos-
sible to say more definitely which of the two regions must be regarded as their original home; it can
only be said that Echinus acutus has probably immigrated into the Mediterranean after the formation
of its recent connection with the Atlantic.

The West African tropical region comprises the tract from Cape Verde and the Cape Verde
Islands to about the mouth of the Congo; it is, however, comparatively little known, and possibly its
southern limit will prove to go somewhat farther down towards the Cape, the littoral fauna of this
southern part of the African Coast being almost completely unknown. — Perhaps also St. Helena and
Ascension rightly belong to this region. Their littoral fauna is, however, too imperfectly known to
say anything certain thereof at present.!

The following species are recorded from this region:

Dorocidaris nuda Echinus melo Echinolampas Hellei
Cidaris tribuloides Spheerechinus granularis Echinoneus cyclostomus
— metularia ‘Tripneustes esculentus Schizaster Edwardsi

Tretocidaris spinosa o= gratilla (angulosus) 3rissus unicolor
Diadema antillarum Echinometra lucunter Rhabdobrissus Jullieni
Arbacia pustulosa Clypeaster subdepressus Metalia Africana
Genocidaris maculata Rotula Augusti Meoma ventricosa.
Parechinus microtuberculatus — Rumphii

«In the Report on the Fauna of Ascension (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5. Ser. VIII. 1881) the following Echinoids are
named (identified by Professor F. J. Bell): Cidaris metularia, Diadema selosum, Tripneustes angulosus, Echinometra sub-
angularis, Echinoneus cyclostomus and Rotula dentata. It seems, indeed, very remarkable that no less than three Indo-Pacific
forms are represented in this locality, viz. Cidaris metularia, Tripneustes angulosus (= gratilla) and Echinoneus cyclostomus,

and one can scarcely suppress a doubt, whether they are not really Cidarts tribuloides, Tripn. esculentus and Echinoneus

ECHINOIDEA. II. 185

Of these species the following are known from this region alone: Dorocidaris nuda, Rotula
Augusti, Rumphi, Echinolampas Flellet (the Ech. Blanchardi Cotteau is probably only a synonym of
this species), Schzzaster Edwardst, Rhabdobrissus Jullient and Metalia africana; whilst Tretocidaris spi-
nosa is known only from St. Helena.

From the Mediterranean region have probably immigrated: Arbacia pustulosa, Parechinus micro-
tubercutatus, Echinus melo and Spherechinus granularis, from the East American region: Cidaris fri-
bulotdes, Diadema antillarum, Tripneustes esculentus, Echinometra lucunter, Clypeaster subdepressus
and Meoma ventricosa. The two species Genocidaris maculata and Brissus wnicolor, as stated above,
occur; both in the Mediterranean and East American region. It is worth noticing that the species
Cidaris tribuloides, Tripneustes esculentus, Echinometra lucunter, Clypeaster subdepressus and Meoma
ventricosa are not known from the Mediterranean region. Judging from the currents they (viz. the
larve) must have passed through the latter region; it is then probably the temperature which is not
high enough here to suit them.

The East American littoral region comprises the whole, very extensive tract from the mouth
of La Plata in the South to Cape Hatteras in the North. Certainly many of the species of this region
do not proceed so far towards North or South, but it is scarcely possible to distinguish more than
one region here. Its centre is the West-Indies; from here the species extend more or less in both
directions, the North American and Brazilian Coast thus having upon the whole a considerably poorer
Echinoid-Fauna than the West Indies, without species peculiar to them (except Paracentrotus Gaimardit
which is hitherto known only from the Coast of Brazil).

This region, together with the East American deep-sea region, is by far the richest of all the
Atlantic regions and among the richest of the world. No less than 48 species are known from the
East American littoral region against 24 species from the Mediterranean, 23 from the West African
tropical, and 20 from the European boreal region. The following species are known from the East

American littoral region:

Dororidaris papillata Genocidaris maculata Mellita testudinata

— abyssicola

Cidaris affinis

— tribuloides
Tretocidaris Bartletti
Aspidodiadema Jacobyi
Diadema antillarum
Arbacia punctulata

— pustulosa
Coelopleurus floridanus
Salenia Patterson
Trigonocidaris albida

Echinus gracilis
Paracentrotus Gaimardi
Psammechinus variegatus
Tripneustes esculentus
Echinometra lucunter

— viridis
Clypeaster latissimus

— Ravenellii

-- subdepressus
Echinanthus rosaceus
Mellita sexforis

Encope marginata

— Michelini
Echinoneus semilunaris
Echinolampas depressa
Conolampas Sigsbei
Rhyncopygus caribbaarum
Palzeotropus Josephine
Palezeopneustes cristatus

_- hystrix

Linopneustes longispinus
Paleobrissus Hilgardi

semilunaris As long, however, as we know almost nothing of the littoral fauna of St. Helena and the West Coast of Africa
South of Congo, we cannot deny the possibility of the occurrence of these species at Ascension; the streams of the Southern
Atlantic at least would easily account for their occurrence there, if they were only found off South Africa. But only Crdaris
metularta has been recorded from there, and only from older collections (Rey. of Ech.).

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV, 2. 24

186 ECHINOIDEA. II.

Agassizia excentrica Moira atropos Metalia pectoralis
Periaster limicola Macropneustes spatangoides Meoma ventricosa
Brisaster fragilis KEchinocardium cordatum Brissopsis elongata
Schizaster orbignyanus Brissus unicolor ~- atlantica.

A considerable part (31) of these species exclusively belongs to this region, not occurring else-

where, viz.

Dorocidaris abyssicola Mellita sexforis Palezeopneustes hystrix
Tretocidaris Bartletti — testudinata Linopneustes longispinus
Aspidodiadema Jacobyi Encope marginata Paleeobrissus Hilgardi
Arbacia punctulata — Michelini Agassizia excentrica
Echinus gracilis Echinoneus semilunaris Periaster limicola
Paracentrotus Gaimardi Echinolampas depressa Schizaster orbignyanus
Psammechinus variegatus Conolampas Sigsbei Moira atropos
Echinometra viridis Rhyncopygus caribbearum Macropneustes spatangoides
Clypeaster latissimus Paleeotropus Josephinze Metalia pectoralis

_- Ravenellii Palezeopneustes cristatus Brissopsis elongata

Echinanthus rosaceus

Several of these species also occur in the deeper regions, the limit between the littoral and
archibenthal zones being here especially arbitrary and not expressed in the bathymetrical distribution
of the species.

Besides the above named 31 species the following are also really characteristic of the region,
but have crossed the Atlantic, thus occurring in the Mediterranean or West African tropical region:
Cidaris tribulotdes, Diadema antillarum, Tripneustes esculentus, Echinometra lucunter,: Clypeaster sub-
depressus and Meoma ventricosa. Two species, viz. Salenia Pattersont and Coelopleurus floridanus also
occur at South Africa; it is scarcely possible to say, where their original home is.

Among the rest of the species occurring in this region one, Ardacia pustulosa, is an intruder
from the Mediterranean region, while the remaining are either widely distributed over the Northern
Atlantic, viz. Dorocidaris papillata, Brisaster fragilis, or at least common to two or more regions, viz.
Cidaris affinis, Trigonocidaris albida, Genocidaris maculata, Echinocardium cordatum, Brissus unicolor
and Brissopsts atlantica(?). Forj the present, at least it is impossible to say whether these belong
originally to one or the other of the regions.

The Atlantic deep-sea regions. Though the physical conditions of the deeper regions appear
to be of a very uniform character over the whole Atlantic, it is evident that the Echinoids occurring in
the deeper regions are not all uniformly distributed over the whole Atlantic within the limits of their
bathymetrical distribution. Some species appear to occur exclusively at the European side of the At-
lantic, others only at the American side, while others still are known only from the Southern part of
the Atlantic. It seems therefore necessary to distinguish three Atlantic deep-sea regions, viz. the
Furopean, the East American and West African. Undoubtedly several of the species hitherto known
from only one of these regions will prove to be more widely distributed, but on the other hand several
of the species are so well known and characteristic that it may be regarded as certain that they can-

eee &: A very nearly related species, Echinometra prisca, is described by Cotteau from the Miocene of Anguilla. (De-
scription des Echinides tertiaires des Iles St. Barthélemy et Anguilla. Sv. Vet. Akad. Handl. XIII. 1875.)

ECHINOIDEA. II. 187

not have been overlooked in the regions, from where they are hitherto not recorded. It seems then
really to be the case, that also the Atlantic deep sea comprises several distinct regions, though it seems
impossible for the present to point out special physical characters, which distinguish the separate re-
gions. As seen in Gerh. Schott’s admirable «Oceanographie und maritime Meteorologie»! the bottom
temperature is in the whole Atlantic, in depths beyond 1o0o M., over 2°. Only in the Davis Strait
and in the large Brazilian basin to the West of the midatlantic ridge (from near St. Paul down to the
antarctic sea) the temperature is below 2°. But this difference in the temperature does not seem to
be sufficient to cause corresponding marked differences in the deep-sea Echinoid-fauna.

The subdivision of the deep-sea regions into an archibenthal and abyssal zone is upon the whole
not supported by the bathymetrical distribution of the species; most of the species occurring in the
abyssal zone also occur in the archibenthal zone, and probably several of the species hitherto not
known beyond the archibenthal zone will ultimately prove to have a greater bathymetrical distribution.
Still it is worth noticing that the Meridosternata almost exclusively belong to the abyssal zone.

The European Atlantic deep-sea region comprises the Northern Atlantic, to the East of a
line from the Denmark Strait to the Gibraltar Strait2 It is limited from the cold area of the Nor-
wegian Sea by the ridges across the Deumark-Strait, the Faroe-Channel and between Iceland and the
Faroe Islands.

The following species are known from this region:

Dorocidaris papillata Trigonocidaris albida Urechinus naresianus
Stereocidaris ingolfiana Hypsiechinus coronatus Plexechinus hirsutus
Porocidaris purpurata Echinus esculentus Pourtalesia Wandelt
Phormosoma placenta — _acutus Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) phiale
Calveria hystrix — elegans _ _ paradoxa
Areeosoma tenestratum — Alexandri Hemiaster expergitus

— violaceum -— affinis Brisaster fragilis
Hygrosoma Petersi Strongylocentrotus drébachiensis Spatangus purpureus
Sperosoma Grimaldi Spheerechinus granularis — Raschi
Echinosoma uranus Echinocyamus pusillus Echinocardium flavescens
Salenia hastigera Neolampas rostellata Brissopsis lyrifera.

Of these species we may first eliminate the following as occasional intruders from the boreal
and Mediterranean regions: Lchinus esculentus, Strongylocentrotus drébachiensts, Spherechinus granu-
laris and Echinocardium flavescens. Of the rest the following are known from this region only: Ave-
osoma violaceum, Echinosoma uranus, Hypsiechinus coronatus, Plexechinus hirsutus, Echinosigra (Pour-
talesta) phiale and paradoxa. Porocidarts purpurata and Sperosoma Grimaldi are known only from this
and the West African region. These species are, however, (except Porocidaris purpurata and Spero-
soma Grimaldi) either small or easily confused with other species. It is certainly not much to
characterize the region by, but especially Porocidaris purpurata and Sperosoma Grimaldi are so mag-

nificent and peculiar forms that they can certainly not have been confused with other species; the

t Wissensch. Ergebn. d. deutsch. Tiefsee-Exp. I. 1go2.

2 The limit between the European and the East American Atlantic deep-sea regions will undoubtedly prove not to
be a straight line of the course here indicated. For the present, however, our knowledge of the deep-sea fauna of the Mid-
Atlantic is too insufficient for pointing out the limit between these regions more exactly.

24*

_ECHINOIDEA. II.

188

presence of these species and the absence of several remarkable American forms then really seems
to mark this part of the Atlantic deep-sea as a separate region, distinct from the American deep-sea
region. It is also worth noticing that the Phormosoma placenta of this region appears to be somewhat
different from the American form (the Var. Szgsdez).

The West African Atlantic deep-sea region comprises the tract from the Azores to about
St. Helena. With the exception of the sea off the Azores it is very imperfectly known, and the whole
«region» will perhaps prove to be untenable, though it now appears to have several species peculiar

to it. — The following species are known from this region:

Aceste bellidifera
Paleeotropus Hirondellei

Dorocidaris papillata Genocidaris maculata

— nuda Echinus atlanticus

Porocidaris purpurata — Alexandri Peripatagus cinctus

Phormosoma placenta — affinis Homolampas fragilis

Hygrosoma Petersi Echinocyamus pusillus Henuaster expergitus
Spatangus purpureus
Raschi

Brissus Damesi

Sperosoma Grimaldi — grandiporus

Dermatodiadema antillarum — macrostomus —

Salenia hastigera Calymne relicta

Trigonocidaris albida Cystechinus clypeatus Brissopsis atlantica (?)

Of these the following species are known from this region only: Dovrocidaris nuda (also littoral),
Echinus atlanticus, Echinocyamus macrostomus, Calymne relicta, Cystechinus clypeatus, Paleotropus EHi-
rondellet and Peripatagus cinctus. Probably, however, several of these species will prove to have a
considerably wider geographical range, and this region upon the whole is very problematic; especially
it might be more natural to include the Sea off the Azores in the European atlantic region.

The East American Atlantic deep-sea region comprises the whole western half of the At-
Also the

Caribbean Sea and the Mexican Gulf belong to this region. It is, of course, not sharply limited from

lantic, from the Davis Strait to at least off La Plata, and perhaps even farther southwards.

the East American littoral region, several species ranging from the littoral to the abyssal zone.
No less than 74 species are known to occur in this region, which is thus by far the richest of

all the Atlantic regions. These species are:

Dorocidaris papillata Hygrosoma Petersi Salenia hastigera

abyssicola| Tromikosoma Koehleri Trigonocidaris albida

— Blakei Aspidodiadema Jacobyi Genocidaris maculata
— micans — tonsum Echinus elegans
Cidaris affinis Dermatodiadema antillarum — gracilis
— tribuloides Diadema antillarum — Alexandri
Tretocidaris Bartletti Hemipedina cubensis — affinis

Stereocidaris ingolfiana

Histocidaris Sharreri

Phormosoma placenta
var. Sigsbei

Calveria hystrix

Arzeosoma fenestratum

_— 3elli

Arbacia punctulata
Podocidaris scutata
sculpta
Coelopleurus floridanus
Salenia goésiana
— Pattersoni

— _varispina

Strongylocentrotus drébachiensis
Psammechinus variegatus
‘Tripneustes esculentus
Echinometra lucunter
Pygastrides relictus
Echinocyamus grandiporus
Clypeaster latissimus

ECHINOIDEA. II.

Clypeaster subdepressus
Echinanthus rosaceus
Echinarachnius parma
Mellita sexforis
Neolampas rostellata
Echinolampas depressa
Conolampas Sigsbei
Rhyncopygus caribbeearum
Urechinus naresianus
Pourtalesia miranda

— Wandelt

Aéropsis rostrata
Aceste bellidifera
Palzeotropus Josephinze
-~ Thomsoni
Homolampas fragilis
Paleeopneustes cristatus
— hystrix
Linopneustes longispinus
Palzeobrissus Hilgardi
Hemiaster expergitus (Mentzi)
Agassizia excentrica

189

Periaster limicola
Brisaster fragilis
Schizaster orbignyanus
Macropneustes spatangoides
Brissus unicolor

— Damesi
Metalia pectoralis
Meoma ventricosa
Rhinobrissus micrasterioides
Brissopsis alta

— atlantica.

Of these species two may be eliminated as intruders from the Arctic littoral region, viz. Stron-

eylocentrotus dribachiensis and Echinarachnius parma, while some other species are only occasional

visitors from the littoral region, viz. Czdarts tribuloides, Diadema antillarum, Arbacta punctulata, Cly-

peaster subdepressus, Echinanthus rosaceus, Rhyncopygus caribbearum, Metalia pectoralis, Meoma ven-

tricosa and Grissus unicolor. The same probably holds good for Psammechinus vartegatus, Tripneustes

esculentus, Echinometra lucunter and Mellita sexforts.

also from the European or African side of jthe Atlantic:

Dorocidaris papillata
Cidaris affinis
Stereocidaris ingolfiana
Phormosoma placenta
Calveria hystrix
Areeosoma fenestratum
Hygrosoma Petersi

Dermatodiadema antillarum

Salenia hastigera

Trigonocidaris albida
Genocidaris maculata
Echinus elegans
— Alexandri
— affinis

Echinocyamus grandiporus

Clypeaster subdepressus
Neolampas rostellata

Of the rest the following species are known

Urechinus naresianus
Pourtalesia Wandeli
Aceste bellidifera
Homolampas fragilis
Hemiaster expergitus
Brisaster fragilis
Brissus Damesi
Brissopsis atlantica (?).

Further two species, Salenia Pattersoni and Coelopleurus floridanus, are known also from the

South African Sea, and one, Asfidodiadema tonsum, occurs also in the Pacific.

The remaining 32 species are known only from this region (and partly from the East American

littoral region, which cannot be sharply limited against the deep-sea region).

following:

Dorocidaris abyssicola

— Blakei

— micans
Tretocidaris Bartletti
Histocidaris Sharreri
Arceosoma Belli
Tromikosoma Koehleri
Aspidodiadema Jacobyi
Hemipedina cubensis
Podocidaris scutata

— sculpta

Salenia goésiana

— varispina
Echinus gracilis
Pygastrides relictus
Clypeaster latissimus
Echinolampas depressa
Conolampas Sigsbei
Pourtalesia miranda
Aéropsis rostrata
Paleeotropus Josephinze

-- Thomsoni

These species are the

Paleeopneustes cristatus

— hystrix
Linopneustes longispinus
Paleeobrissus Hilgardi
Agassizia excentrica
Periaster limicola
Schizaster orbignyanus
Macropneustes spatangoides
Rhinobrissus micrasterioides

Brissopsis alta.

1gO ECHINOIDEA. Il.

Leaving aside among these all rare, inconspicuous or not easily recognizable species, we still
get a fair proportion of species peculiar to this region. It is certainly not likely that such species as
Dorocidaris Blaket, Echinus gracilis, Clypeaster latisstmus, Echinolampas depressa, Conolampas
Sigshet, Paleopneustes cristatus, hystrix, Linopneustes longispinus, Agassizia excentrica, Periaster
linicola, Schizaster orbignyanus and Macropneustes spatangoides will ever be found to ocenr on the
European side of the Atlantic, as, on the other hand, it is equally unlikely that Porocidaris pur-
purata and Sperosoma Grimaldi should prove to occur at the American side of the Atlantic. Thus
it seems beyond doubt that also the Atlantic Deep-sea has its definite regions. — It must, however,
be borne in mind that the distinction between littoral and deep-sea regions is mainly artificial, and
marked limits between the deep-sea regions, such as between the cold and the warm area in the
Northern Atlantic, do not exist.

In the «Blake»-Echinoidea (p. 79) Agassiz states that «the deep-sea Fauna of the Caribbean
and of the Gulf of Mexico is far more closely allied to that of the Pacific than to that of the Atlantic».
Though it may be emphasized that not a single species is common to the East and West Coast of
America, it is certainly beyond doubt that a rather considerable portion of the West Indian Echini
have been derived from the Pacific in previous times when Central-America did not yet exist. Such
genera as Diadema, Psammechinus, Tripneustes, Echinometra, Mellita, Encope, Rhyncopygus, Agassizia,
Moira and Meoma are most probably of pacific origin. But on the other hand an even larger number of
genera are common to the West Indies and the African-European side of the Atlantic, but not known
from the Pacific Coasts of America, such as: Dorocidarts, Phormosoma, Calveria, Areosoma, Hygrosoma,
Trigonocidaris, Genocidarts, Echinus, Echinocyamus, Neolampas, Echinolampas, Paleotropus and Echino-
cardium. Adding thereto the considerable number of species identical in the West Indian Seas and
the Atlantic, it seems not too much to say that the above quoted statement of Agassiz is very

exaggerated.

To enter on a discussion of the geographical distribution of the whole of the Echinoidea
would carry us too far. I must limit myself to pointing out a few facts.

The South African fauna is, as pointed out by Déderlein, remarkable through the mixing up
of Indo-Pacific with Atlantic species and not less for the peculiar resemblance to the European boreal
fauna. This resemblance, however, is not so great as hitherto supposed, because on a closer exami-
nation the South African forms have proved to be distinct species, or at least distinct varieties; scar-
cely any species of Echinoids (except the almost cosmopolitan Echinocardium cordatum) will prove to
be common to the South-African, and the European boreal region. Nevertheless these corresponding
species: Spatangus Raschi — capensis, Brisaster fragilis — capensis, Echinocardium Jlavescens — capense,
Lrissopsis lyrifera — capensis seem to point definitely to a direct connection of the two regions during
a former period.

The antarctic and subantarctic seas evidently form a distinct region, characterized mainly by
the several species of Sterechinus and Abatus. With the exception of Sterechinus Neumayeri they all

seem to have a rather restricted distribution, probably on account of their not having pelagic larvee

ECHINOIDEA. II.

1gI

(Sterech. Neymayert, on the contrary, has pelagic larvee).! — That there are no bipolar Echini I have
pointed out already in Part I of this work.

Perhaps also the Antarctic deep-sea will prove to form a distinct region; in any case it is a
noteworthy fact that a number of very peculiar forms: Pourtalesia ceratopyga, carinata, hispida, Spatago-

cystis Challengert, Echinocrepts cuneata, Genicopatagus affinis, are hitherto known only from these
fot fo) P,

tracts of the ocean.

t This will be treated in the Report on the Echinoidea of the German South Polar-Expedition.

192

ECHINOIDEA. II.

List of the Echinoidea occurring in the Atlantic

(North of a line from the Congo to La Plata), with their geographical and bathymetrical distribution.

arcic |Z | celia | oS || SUBD | atten | Amesican
| region | 3 _ region 3b 2% | region Atlantic Atlantic
Range 5S) = - z m region region
ad in depth [oy |e ladlga|felecicz| glesl elas 3
(farting): ON e30/| =! | eal eae (as 8 |e ie i) eS ee
Dorocidaris papilata (Leske) .............. 30—800 4-} +] + +y/4+])4+/14)4+/4+/+4+
= MAD YVSSICOlay AlyAI ark nyyerns canes eis 40—270 +- +
== Blak ene AcpAt aarti reel cstere teint 120—450 +
— Snitewicy Wea sos omaaconsonnseoL ods 180—210 at Ae +
== sniGhy What peohtaconerdeonsesessee 35—225 oles all ete +- -
Cidariscattimis pent rere terre teeny: | 20—425 +} +]... | + =
=. frateyits ley dis bog 5cuaqnugdeee apr 0--250 ar ll ar +
= nimibvbyiipale, owes acheacoueenaned Littoral Soll ec oe Pe otherwiselIndo:
Tretocidaris Bartletti (A. Ag.).............. 25—400 + +.
SeeSP1IN OSA Mats terete aye et = ayers eae | Littoral a : = ® Only St. Helena.
Stereocidaris ingolfiana Mrtsn............. 170— 635 -+- Sal Se
Also Indian Ocean, off the
Porocidaris purpurata W.Th.............. 485—540 +} + +)/.. Nicobar Islands.
Histocidaris Sharreri (A. Ag.).............. 120—355 ee dees Be |) Sue ||| ees : ;
3 Including Ph. Sigsbei A. Ag.
Phormosoma placenta W.Th.® ............ 150—1355 +/+ + | + | + ]] Perhaps cosmopolitan.
Calverta# hystrix: Wes err aiey sere reie eres sratel 100 — 1000 Be + )4+ + | + || 4 This name is kept here for
conformity’s sake (comp.
Araosoma fenestratum (W. Th.) ........... 80—375 (+) + + p.20). .
= violaceumoMnrtstine ogee 200 + af
=>, Ia batibhi paaneoaostaqsboodnDed : 135—265 Bie itexs al Se keae
My grosoma Petersi (AN AG:) hic neice are letelsla)-1a"= | 400—1225 +) +}4+/4)4+)/+
Echinosoma uranus (W. Th.).............. | 470—1525 +] + ce
Tromikosoma Koehleri Mrtsn. ............ 1435 i: ic +
Sperosoma Grimaldi Koehler ............. 600—1250 Se + + ]..
Aspidodiadema Jacobyi A.Ag............. 95—340 (+-) => || 32
= vepiiefibl Js 6 es oad pepe aa rn 100— 1700 .. | .. | -f |] Also Indo-pacific.
Dermatodiadema antillarum (A. Ag.)....... | 420—1640 Bet lb on +/+ )+
Diadema antillarum Phil seers es O—115 ae || cork sam Al Sars (4+)
Centrostephanus longispinus (Phil.)........ Littoral +/+ ais
Hemipedina cubensis A. Ag. .............. 140—270 a +
Arbacia punctulata (lmk.)................ o—170 oal\ Saas |es 2 +
== pustulosa (eske)ie-a-soareh ence aG ns Littoral +)/+)+/]4+ We
Podocidatis scutata A. Ag. 22... 0c. sees 580 sé il Se
=e SCHIPLA AAD cmemmyaters anions steric 140—400 se +]...
Coelopleurus floridanus A.Ag....... 50—1325 + + | -+ || Also off South Africa.
Salenia gotsiana Lov: eo oeeveee css lesions | 180 es SB
—~ sPattersoni Aj Age. .ncnacsecstine | 50—450 + af ex} tetas beers eS a Africa and in
— hastigera AVAG iy. ..ccnson verns | 100—1850 + + | .- | +] also at the Philippines.
—' ‘vdrispina AvAp e522 aac ee ness ee 270—1675 Br liaise ae = | +
Trigonocidaris albida A. Ag............... 40—450 aye +/+ +]..)+
Genocidaris maculata A. Ag............... 25—600 +}+]/+/]+ a + | +
Hypsiechinus coronatus Mrtsn............ | 450— 800 + | +
|

ECHINOIDEA. IL. 193

Medi- Rucooese West East
Sea ee | Adie’ | fice | Ansan
Range | S 2 8 region region
Name | in depth | Sale z .§ Fle oe Baa -
| |
Parechinus miliaris (Mill.)................ || oO—50 balks +) (7) +]... |
— microtuberculatus (Blv.) ............ | 2—4o PEN ee | sai [lets A eel ceed imerty hie gl focal | sy here | hse
Echinus) esculentus' Ty. 4...5..5-4 0.0. ses ees || o—6go es Mg Sel sede esc en ANH eS csr | earl ete
= EXSATE inl aga ees ee R Ono Ue eee | 20—700 eerste | + })+ +)+ ‘ | ied aeee|
== sacle Iii, ook So de AS DR eee | 30—600 ||..|.. |(4)]| +] + -* Net ioee . ||
= SGaS Iwo) Uy Rem en sane suseee | 50-950 | .. Beil ae | Roel Pee. Ieoalleae dl ire Saleh ss
=F tenuispinus, (NOTH) !.ea scsi. hans | go oles. || atl) coulis oe Peay leet oc = Gey ce
= (SRS EINER os & onan aan eee ue 75—250 Solos mioe|lentoel ices yl re x. Kae |
Alexandrite) an KOE... eve. cele eaters 8 aye 420—1350 || .. |(+)| .. | staal |feate)| | + + |
= Goins Wisi eee nas opan oon ne COOE | 420—1120 S| ete | |= b |
——ratlanticus MrtSmg ye 22 ces ape cie wieveye cere = 425 Bl oto lleteese || rvetena lt esteoll arsretl nersal paves il pet tl) toe eh sent | ater em Only fromecAscension:
Paracentrotus lividus (Imk.).............. | o—20 set's Gasol) jie (lee Bec | wi ; i
= (Erkan os ou ee none Ihe SERRE DE Sale Mahe call alte 1). 3 Wao Wa rac ae
Strongylocentrotus drébachiensis (O. F. M.). || o—64o Fail eyes lesctezaltesseth |tevce eras | meeenl (ta GE) +) | (++) |] Also in the North Pacific.
Spherechinus granularis (Lmk.)........... o—400 spire Meee + | |(+) | |
Si LOS CUISMIRGISSO): eases oliel Siatens oi esse: ete. 1 | 3%5—50 + | ca
Psammiechinus variegatus (Lmk.).......... | o—300 ayaa Farsi vee fans feces ly Reser ets es |e) ediceal hecte | +
Tripneustes esculentus (Leske) ............ o—450 Baul lion (sete etl ode lime Iles | fees
Se eratilinmilesie)\. 0... js ee. senes ss: Oes 4) Woes eauleeellh alll meee boot ullieas culls oll eal eeceenteaeetaescememmesneargs
Echinometra Incunter. (ly). occ 5 ee siete oe o—250 Stee ||"Rreelleoe Albeo | ae |) || oc Poo shes, Illace Sart
a= S7PSUES ASE op eeoenacens dae onene | 0-7 dle allt eer lie Al ml et ee
Heterocentrotus mamillatus (Klein) ....... etsy igcose-) War) lcera| esol MAN a || Cech [con || ide toca ecards crn for Sloth pat emeder permed
Pygastrides relictus Lov.o................. | 180 Se ecg eae Nes} ioe Nae thie | ecient steal ite | ‘Coals Siok a
Echinocyamus pusillus (0. F. Mill) ....... NW o=goor Hs Set el Pal oll cea te _ ieoleaeal
—)) Prandiporus MirtSNs. 2... c/o eee sens | TOO—=700) I] es, |-si=2 |) veil) os | eset] eee |) cee | +)4+)/+)4+!
— macrostomus Mrtsn................. | 700—r100 || .. pau beatae cher | choral) mesa Mekeiae| Pets ali = oo |
Clypeaster latissimus (Lmk.) .............. go—1g950 | + | | | +/+
mermemuaenrelliity (AGRA) ler myelers as 7aro ale,c'e' vais | 15—100 a lheses
— subdepressus (Gray) ................ | O—1950 | Seas | hsyee |Iletenze | eersn || Cee Nleest al shel ate | ate
Ee chinanthus rosaceus: (Lz)! g2.02 52.52 6 eee | O—120 ae +]...
Echinarachnius parma (Lmk.) ............ 2 —8g0 oo (+) | (4+) | (4-)]] Also in the North Pacific.
Wiellitassextorse (Metkeayi cera cyercistyse ines | o—270 eet lcralllss |stats | ree ee + |
——ratestudinataw (KGET) ccjrc cet cee ete ve o—25 ies ee |= | |
RotularAeustih Keleimee ec ae cccessye oats esosret- | Littoral | +
oe attorecy labile dlohilee eomeo noe aon eae Littoral al Vite sell Peete lication |e lee eel Mecca eA ay | --
Encope marginata Agass.................. o—70o + | |
=P MET CHYGLIT IPA CASSIE Oe siege ce fap oe i oiecers | o—30 Pe eel et ioe bees + |
Echinoneus semilunaris (Lmk.) ........... o—80_ | eee —
y | | | Only Ascension, otherwise
—, (cyclostomus Weske 2.0... cece s eee Littoral | Nye. lear: Iter || Indo-pacific.
Neolampas rostellata A.Ag................ | 75—690 Nees (vee | lest oertes | ox [ick | a |
Echinolampas depressa Gray ............. | 35—160 | Se: + | Nee i
= JEG NEN, anon coe Ab DO DD aan oeDOBEOD Littoral ‘ | He ot | | : | F Scal|
Conolampas Sigsbei A. Ag............-.... Fev trea frac. || aoel| eoallecre + | eee | + |
Rhyncopygus caribbearum (Lmk.)........ == TOSp lleva lfee ea eeu | rate | 50 + | -- | | Cc Alsss GE) |
Urechinus naresianus A. Ag.............. 420—1715 =" || Sea }+ ]+|.. | ee | + | + |] Also off South Africa.
Plexechinus' hirsutus Mrtsi. .......-222.-- | 450—1300 | sailed l4eo Race | aed llimaseatl| veys | + i+ | + | are | . |
| ! | | : |

The Ingolf-Expedition. IV. 2. 25

ECHINOIDEA. II.

194
asic |B | eee |e |ge| Bue” | atin | Ameren
F Range ak ae zexont Eg ae xegion aan ae
Name in depth |_| _ Sorelle a er Sal aan es | Sa ea
Genomy | }2("@ |ZE(PS|" "|e" |28| 2128] 2 (Se) 2
= i? 7 |
Calymne relicta W.Th......--:--.+.....-- 620—2650 +
Cystechinus clypeatus A. Ag.............-. 1900—I9I5 +
Pourtalesia miranda A. Ag. ............... | 350 BE |POo || GON] comers) ca Pas |l cop ea tse. | oe jp ar
=! Jefireyst Wey Distr mry- ia) cirerae seerpte | 125—1300 || .. | +> a cs
= \Wifotsl Whacih oonooscoadsooadan bod | 845-1715 qr +
— (Echinosigra) phiale W.Th.......... | 845—1975 a Also off South Africa
= = paradoxa Mrtsn....... | 845—910 aF 56
Aéropsis prostratan (Weeki: har -ty-ret4)s1-\- siete | 1240—1750 +
Aceste bellidifera W. Th................... (Pioj==sizor0y || au liso |llao || eo || saris [oaelle so. |} oo [lon |) SE || go Se
Palzotropus Josephine Lov........ ...... 80—250 med fa, || koa leit eevee | se +
—— se eDHOMSONI PAAR Sere elon ieisia- iat 235 =
==) Hirondelletskoehler.....2... <0. oe | 925 aie
Peripatagus cinctus Koehler.............. | 550 Bee ere peered eee ecielPenes ose ketene iba |t len. lado
Homolampas fragilis A. Ag................ | 300 —1920 ae fs) e || Se
Palzopneustes cristatus A.Ag............. | 55—450 + +
= iihsiabe AL h eee nbaaneeocuonanoas 20—210 + +
Linopneustes longispinus A.Ag.......... ; 40—300 + +
Palzobrissus Hilgardi A. Ag............... 80—185 + ae +)... |
Hemiaster expergitus Lov................. | 220—1700 || -- | -- (+) all atea| =e + | +1) +2) 1 Hemiaster Menizi.
Agassizia excentrica A. Ag. ......)...-.5--- 35 —390 -f- + |
Periaster limicola A’ Aig. . 3.5. < Soins osc esis 70—140 +- ae +]...
Brisaster fragilis (Diib. Kor.).............. | 35—700 rer eared fe Sl) se | ap +} +
Schizaster canaliferus (Lmk.) ............ 20—35 yall hates Beko | t= Ae ref |
—sOrbiptyanus Al AC ec. eats aieein ast: | 65—1505 + +) +)
——n i edwardst Cotteaw: pa caeiccunacies oe Littoral weve ers coer Ae hl teres | ec tesal ee onl
Moira jatropos (lami: Weak eee Be o—S8o +
Spatangus purpureus O.F.M............. 5—460 aon Sle el coalimeiiccles tiene oe
= RASCHU GMO Vem ale cik cic ce ereoeean 100-500(800}|| == ||(te)!| ste |e | ee [Ieee al) eaten eten |ierenl fete
Macropneustes spatangoides A. Ag......... || 80—375 a's) | tovsii ll joccces | Peciedll| Meetesn | onset Re=t-= | Mrsy-ai eerctn [renee | ee | ot
Echinocardium flavescens (O. F.M.)....... | 5—x50 oe flee | se |e | ey) } +
— intermedium Mrtsn. ................ | Littoral + ie MY
— pennatifidum Norm................. i 5—150 + (o||oteel| | ted | (axe (?)
amo COLMA Lite (POL. )e sic mipictomeleic aveveleiteiere o—85 cede) |] te] He +. Probably cosmopolitan,
— mediterraneum Forb................ 2—20 we fee (BD + oF:
Brissus unicolor Klein........ Sere ferscetons,sicachsy2 | o—130 +)}/+/+)+ +
== AIT OSU AGIA re bids saves caine vias edie: etxorion| P| "oO oo Ilsa mo lfess fo hoe || co | St +
Rhabdobrissus Jullieni Cott............... | 10 Sroii{ es oy|l bate al Breet realestate
Metalia pectoralis (Imk.)................. | o—155 Bisa epo| fon Soule || ar se || coy!) oo || 50 | ar
ame COR CAN ANCOR Ee eta hi cain cmiemate iaieee | 50—75 Sal licsoleoe |! Se Bc
mt PALTICANA WVELI ae) <r5-; 7 sole ie ined cis ce | Littoral +]...
Meoma ventricosa (Limk.)................. o—240 +] + +
Rhinobrissus micrasterioides A. Ag. ....... | 175—240 | ab a2 Wow i] oo Bo ||.) || oc ar
Brissopsis lyrifera (Forb.) ................. | 5—210 POMC N Leclls i ooelloa | a= |) ae
a) EU a eae tare donmetinaotinene 6 hoes | 120—170 «fly SEf=a | 2
=— Atlantica MMITtatl. cn cnealcdess sane nee (Seo YT (moe Woon omelet Iba ee ce leo flac |) i Hse |] 4k
i A EV hi Sec ug MiGion Gan oboe | —25 Seal Poon crac Nh coe |l o Gelb

Abatus. II. 84, ror, 106, 114, 190.
— cavernosus. II. Ior, 112, 114, IT5.
— cordatus. II. 96.

Acanthocidaris. I. 21, 29.
— curvatispinis. I. 29, 173.

Acesta. I. 94.

Aceste. II. 87, 90, 94, 96, 97.

— bellidifera. 11. 94-96, 188, 189, 194. |

Acrocladia. I. 91.
Acrocladine. I. 92.
Aérope. II. 87, 90, 97.

— bidens. II. go.

— caffra. II. go.

— fulva. Il. 94.

— rostrata. II. go.
Aéropidee. Il. 85, 86, 89.
Aéropsis. II. go, 95, 96.

— fulva. I. 91, 93, 94.

— rostrata. II go—gq, 148, 189, 194.
Agassizia. II. 113, 114, Igo.

— excentrica. II. 186, 189, I90, 194.
Amblypneustes. I. 90, 92.

— formosus. I. 104.
Amphidetus. II. 123.

— cordatus. II. 145.

— gibbosus. II. 139.

— Kiirtzii. I. 145, 147.

— ovatus. II. 132.

— roseus. II. 132, 137, 143.
— zealandicus. Il. 149.
Amphisternata. II. 87, 89, 90.

Amphisterni. II. 84, 85.

Ananchytidee. II. 58, 72, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89. |

Anapesus. I. gt. IL. 173, 174.
Anthocidaris. I. 10, 91, 96, 126, 128, 132,

133, 137, 138.
— crassispina. I. 179.

— homalostoma. I. 121, 123, 125-126, |

138, 179.

Arzosoma. I. 9, 53, 54, 56, 63, 66. II. 19,
20, 21, 190.

— Belli. 1. 55, 64, 66, 72, 80, 81. II.

188, 189, 192.

coriaceum. I. 64, 73.

— fenestratum, I. 64, 68, 72-75, S1. II.

187, 188, 189, 192.
— tesselatum. I. 64, 66.
— violaceum. J. 176. II. 187, 192.

|

Index to Parts I—II.

Arbacia. I. 13.
— monilis. I. 83.
— punctulata. II. 185, 186, 188, 189,
192.
— pustulosa. II. 183, 184, 185, 186, 192.
Arbaciade. I. 86.
Arbaciide. II. 27.
Arbacina. I. 83, 84, 85, 86, 91. II. 17.
— forbesiana. I. gt, 145. II. 17.
— Pallaryi. I. 85.
Argopatagus. II. 88.
Aspidodiadema. I. 169.
— Jacobyi. II. 185, 186, 188, 189, 192.
— tonsum. II. 188, 189, 192.
Asternata. IT. 87.
Asthenosoma, I. 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51,
54, 56, 63, 66, 70. II. 18, 19, 20, 26.

— coriaceum. I. 52, 53°54, 55, 176. Il. |

20, 21, 23.
— fenestratum. I. 45, 52-53, 54,
70; 72) 175; 176:
— gracile. I. 51, 52, 57. Il. 6, 25.
— Grubei. I. 45, 48, 49, 50, 54, 63, 71,
II. 19, 20.
— heteractis. I. 45, 49, 63. IL. 20.
— hystrix. I. 45, 51, 52, 54, 7%
D7 3 Lele 2Ae
— Ijimai. I. 44, 56, 65.
— longispinum. I. 44, 56, 65. Il. 5.
— pellucidum. I. 44, 45, 55. Il. 20, 21.
— Reynoldsii. I. 53, 72, 73, 74-
— tesselatum. I. 54, 55. I. 20, 21.
— urens. I. 45, 47, 49, 63. Il. 20
— varium. I. 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 63, 76.
II.,.20:
— violaceum. I. 176.
Atelostomata. IL. 87.

55)

Boletia. I. 3, 90, 91, 92, 136.
— rosea. I. mm, 112.
Brisaster. II. 122, 123, 175.
— antarcticus. II. 123.
— capensis. II. 123, 190.
— fragilis. II. 108-116, 123, 147, 175,
181, 182, 186, 187, 189, 190, I94.
— lacunosus. II. 175.
— latifrons. II. 123
— Moseleyi. II. 123.

| Brisaster Townsendi. Il. 123.

Brissina. II. 89, 96.
Brissoma. II. 174, 175.
Brissopsis. II. 90, 97, 107, 134, 158, 163,
165, 166, 167, 168, 174-175.
— alta. II. 107, 159-160, 161, 162, 165,
166, 168, 174, 175, 189, 194.
— atlantica. II. 158, 160-163, 164, 165,
168, 174, 175, 189, 194.
— circosemita. II. 168, 175.
— columbaris. II. 161, 168, 175.
— elegans. II. 174, 175.
— elongata. II. 44, 159, 162, 163-165,
166, 167, 168, 175, 186, 194.
— lyrifera. II. 96, 113, 117, 124, 136,
152-166, 167, 168, 174, 175, 181, 183,
184, 187, 190, 194.
— lyrifera, var. capensis. II. 158, Igo.
pulvinata. II. 156.
— Oldhami. Il. 168, 175.
— pacifica. II. 44, 175.
— parma. Il. 152, 156.
— pulvinata. 156, 174.

| Brissus. II. 87.

— Damiesi. II. 188, 189, 194.

— fragilis. II. 108.

— lyrifer. II. 156, 174.

— pulvinatus. II. 152, 156, 174.

— unicolor. II. 183, 184, 185, 186, 189,
194.

Czenopedina. I. 130. II. 17.

| Calveria. I. 43, 44, 51, 56, 63. Il. 20, 190.

— fenestrata. I. 53, 70, 71, 72, 73-

— gracilis. I. 51, 52, 58, 63, 175. Il. 7.

— hystrix. I. 51, 53, 54, 63, 70-72, 73;
74, 81, 195. Il. 20, 187, 188, 189, 192.

— Phormosoma. I. 53.

| Calymne. II. 53, 54, 85, 86.

— relicta. II. 53-54, 188, 189.
Calymnide. II. 86, 87, 89.
Cardiaster. II. 87.

Cassidulide. II. 84, 86, 86.

Cassiduloidea. I. 87, 89

Centrocidaris. II. 16.

Centrostephanus longispinus. I.
II. 183, 192.

55, 169.

' Ceratophysa. II. 80, 82, 89.

25*

196

ECHINOIDEA. II.

Chondrocidaris. I. 21, 29.

gigantea. I. 29.

Cidaride. I. 11—43, 86. IL 3, 11, 14, 24, 170.
Cidaris. I. 12, 13, 17, 19, 26, 28, 3
94, 171, 172. Il. 14, 15.
affinis. I. 17, 19, 29, 31, 34, 35-38,
40; 43; 70>, 171, 172. We 7; 145 05,

36, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 192. |

annulata. I. 14, 17.

annulifera. I. 19, 20, 172, 173.
baculosa. I. 15, 17, I9, 20, 29, 35,
Vigfek, Vig fee BUG aii, ate

bispinosa. I. 20, 172.

borealis. I. 31.

canaliculata. JI. 167.

curvatispinis. I. 21.

galapagensis. I. 17, 19, 29, 172.
hystrix. I. 31, 34, 35-

imperialis. I. 18.

Liitkeni. I. 20.

metularia. I. 15, 17, I9, 29, 35. II.
14, 184, 185, 192.

nutrix. I. 24, 25-26, 27.
panamensis. I. 19.
papillata. I. 31, 167.
pistillaris. I. 19, 172, 173.

Reini. I. 19, 29, 35, 37-

Stokesii. I. 35.

Thouarsii. I. 17, 19, 29, 35, 172.
tribuloides. I. 14, 17, 18, 19, 29. II.
184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 192.
verticillata. I. 15, 16, 17, 19, 29, II.
14, 15.

Cidarites. II. 15.

dubia. I. 18.

geranioides. I. 18.

hystrix. I. 18.

imperialis. I. 18.

pistillaris, I. 18.

Cionobrissus. II. 87.

Clypeaster. I. 94. II. 29.

latissimus. IJ. 185, 186, 188,
190, 193.

Ravenellii. I. 185, 186, 193.
subdepressus. II. 184, 185, 186,
193.

Clypeastroidea. II. 28, 30, 87, 89.

189,

189,

Coelopleurus floridanus. II. 185, 186, 188,
189, 192.

Colobocentrotus. I. 90, 91, 95, 129, 130,
132, 133, 138, 140.
atratus. I. 129, 130, 140.

— Mertensii. I. 129, 130, 140.
Collyritide. II. 86, 87, 89.
Conolampas Sigsbei. II. 185, 186, 189, 190,

193.
Cottaldia. I. 82.

forbesiana. I.
13, 63.
Cystechinus. II. 39, 41,

87, 88, 89.

clypeatus. II. 42, 46, 47-49, 57, 79,

188, 194.

Cyanosoma. I.

46, 47, 49, 50. 51,

Cystechinus crassus. II. 48.

Loveni. II. 44, 46, 50.

Rathbuni. II. 50.

vesica. II. 46, 50.

Wyvillii. II. 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49,
50.

Cystocrepis. II. 84, So.

Dermatodiadema antillarum. II. 188, 189, |
192.

Diadema. I. 94. If. Igo.

antillarum. II. 183, 184, 185, 186,

188, 189, 192.

saxatile. II. 150.

setosum. II. 184.

Diadematide. I. 86, 170. Il. 14.

Diademina. II. 87, 89.

Diplodetus. II. 175.

Discocidaris. I. 24, 29.

clypeata. I. 29.

mikado. I. 29.

serrata. I. 25, 29.

Dorocidaris. I. 12, 16, 22, 23, 26, 28, 43,

N67) sL7ly 2; 7 eels OMe LAS LS,

190.

abyssicola. I. 31, 34. II. 185, 186,

188, 189, 192.

Alcocki. I. 23, 30.

Bartletti. I. 16. II. 17.

Blakei. I. 16, 28. I. 188, 189, 190,

192.

bracteata. I. 16, 17. IL. 15.

hystrix. IL. 171.

micans. I. 23, 28. II. 9, 10, 16, 188,

189, 192.

neapolitanus. I. 35.

nuda. I. 170) 171, 172: Uly*7, 184,

185, 188, 192.

panamensis. I. 17, 30. II. 5, 15.

papillata. I. 14, 16, 17, 22, 28, 31-35,

36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 170, I7I, 172.

II. 7, 8, 14, 15, 105, 181, 182, 183,

184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192.

Reini. I. 16, 17.

tiara. I. 23, 30, 173.

Dysaster. Il. 84.

Dysasteridae. II. 51.

Echinanthus rosaceus. IJ. 185, 186, 189,
193.

Kchinarachnius parma. II. 179, 180, 189,
193.

Echinidee. I. 8, 86, 90, 91, 134, 140, I4I-
162; Terr AS a5 27 ncon LA aye.

Echinineae. I. 91, 92, 134, 142-162. II. 48, 88.

Echinocardium. II. 87, go, 122, 123, 132,
134, 135, 136, 14%, 147, 150, 151,
152, 176, 190.
atropos. II. 176.

137; 149-50, 152.

capense. II. 137-139, 140, 143, 152,

australe. II.

190.
— cordatum. II. 26, 44, 96, 136, 140,

145-149, 150, 151, 152, 181, 183, 184,
186, I90, 194.
Echinocardium flavescens. II. 96, 113, 124,
132-139, 140-144, 146, 147, 148, 151,
152, 155, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187,
1g0, 194.
intermedium. II. 142-144, 152, 183,
194.
leevigaster. II. 144.
mediterraneum. II. 143,
I5I, 152, 181, 183, 194.
orthonotus. II. 144.
ovatum. II. 132.
— pennatifidum. II. 133, 135, 136, 139-
144, 152, 181, 194.
sebee. II. 145.
Echinocheres globosus. I. 175.
Echinocorys. Il. 85.
ciplyensis. II. 4o.
Echinocorythide. II. 58, 85, 87.
Echinocrepis. II. 71, 83, 85, 89.
cuneata. IL 71, 82, 83, 84, 85, 191.
setigera. II. 71, 83-84, 85.
Echinocyamus. II. Igo.
angulosus. II. 28, 31.
grandiporus. II. 29, 30, 31, 32-36,
188, 189, 193.
hispidulus. II. 31.
macrostomus. II. 32, 36,37, 188, 193.
oviformis. II. 31.
parthenopeus. II. 28.
pusillus. II. 28-39, 181, 183, 184,
187, 188, 193.
speciosus. II. 28.
tarentinus. II. 31.
Echinolampas. II. rgo.
Blanchardi. II. 185.
depressa. II. 183, 185, 186, 189, Igo,
193.
Hellei. II. 184, 185, 193.
Echinometra. I. 6, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 124,
128, 129, 132, 133, 138, 13g. II. 190.
lucunter. I. 128, 129, 139. Il. 184,
185, 186, 188, 189, 193.
macrostoma. I. 92, 129, 139.
Matheei. I. 128, 139.
oblonga. I. 128, 129, 139.
ptisca. Il. 186.
subangularis. I. 128. IL. 184.
van Brunti. I. 129, 139.
viridis. I. 129, 139. II. 185, 186, 193.
Echinometradze. I. 8, 90, 91, 94, 98, 121,
128, 133, 138.
Echinometride. I. 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 138,
rgo. 1 xn, 04, 25) 927,7 87.
Echinometrine. [. g1, 93.
Echinoneide. II. 87.
Echinoneus cyclostomus. II. 184, 193.
semilunaris. II. 182, 186, 193.
Echinosigra. II. 82, 89.
(Pourtalesia) phiale. Il. 68-72, 73,
74, 77, 187, 194.
paradoxa. II. 72—77, 187, 194.

145, 150-

Echinosoma. I. 52, 57, 58, 62. Il. 24, 25, |

hispidum. II. 25.
panamense. II. 24, 25.
tenue. I. 57, 58, 63, 176. II. 7, 24.
uranus. I. 63, 80, 81, 176. II. 24,
25, 187, 192.
Echinostrephus. I. 4, 5, 91, 92, 132, 133,
138, 139.
molare. I. 4, 128, 139.
pentagonus. I. 128, 139.
Echinothuride. I. 43-81, 86. II. 11, 17, 19,
23, 24, 26.
Echinus. I. 3, 5, 8, 9, 37, 45, 56, 60, 77, 89,
99, 91, 94, 96, 98, 99, IOI, 102, 104,
105, 106, 109, I10, I14, IT5, 119,
124, 131,
142, 145,
161,
D2 5 ee lyane LAs lagy iGO.
aciculatus. I. 179.
acutus. I. 85, 95, 98. gg, 100. 105,
106, 135, 144, 152-159, 161, 166, 179,
180. II. 8, 181, 183, 184, 187, 193.
var. Flemingii. I. 154.
mediterraneus. I. 153, 154,
155, 158, 167.
var. norvegicus. I. 155, 179.
affinis. I. 100, 101, 105, 106, 135,
149, 150-152, 159, 166, 179. II. 8,
187, 188, 189, 193.
~ albocinctus. I. 95,
106. II. 25.
albus. I. 123.
Alexandri. I. 73, 98, 99, 100,
TOS eLOGs 107; °124, 8037, 135)
145, 146-149, I50, I5I, 152, 159,
r6n, 066, 177), 180: AL. «101, 130)
180, 181, 182, 187, 188, 189, 193.
angulosus. I. 3, 98. 105, 107, 108,
7.3:

148, 153, 158, 159, 160,

77, 98, 104, 105,

IOI,
144,

— atlanticus. I. 100, 10r, 102, 105,
106, 135, 159, 165, 166. Il. 188, 193.

— cidaris. I. 19.

— Cunninghami. I. 104.

— darnleyensis. I. 98, 104, 105, 109, |
110, II5.

— decoratus. I. 105.

— depressus. I. 94, 152, 157.

— diadema. I. 98, 102.

— elegans. I. 98, gg, 100, IOI, 102,
105, 106, 135, 142-145, 149, 153,
159, 162, 166, 167, 168, 179, 180,
II. 8, 172, 173, 180, 182, 187,

189, 193-
elevatus. I. 104.

106, 135, 160-162, 166, 180, 151. II.
165, 172, 180, 187, 193.

var. fuscus. II. 173.
tenuispinus. I. 162, 181.
fasciatus. I. 104.

Flemingii. I. 96, gg, 100, 152, 153,
154, 156, 157, 162, 167.

132, 133, 134, 138, 141; |

165, 168, 174, 177, 180. II. 11, |

188,

esculentus. I. 95, 97, 98, 99, 105, |

Ellipsechinus. I. gr.
Encope. II. 190.

Epiaster. II. 43.
Eucidaris. I. 12, 19, 26.

Euryechinus.: I. 121.
Evechinus. I. 3, 91, 115, 16, 139. II. 11.
3, 9 3

ECHINOIDEA. II.

Echinus gracilis. I. 98, 100, ror, 105, 106,
135, 165, 166. II. 172, 185, 186, 188,
189, 190, 193.

granularis. I. 162.
granulatus. I. 162.
gratilla. I. 113.
homalostoma. I.

126.

horridus. I. 98, 102, 105, 106.
lacunosus. I. 120.

lepidus. I. 104.

lucidus. I. 98, 100, 101, 105, 106,
135, 145, 159, 161, 165, 166,
Il. 8.

lucunter, I. 128.
magellanicus. I. 3, 95, 98, 101, 103-
104, 105, 106, 110, 167. IL. 8.
margaritaceus. I. 94, 95, 101-102, |
103, 105, 106, 167, 168, 177, 178.
melo. I. 98, gg, 100, 105, 135, 153;
158, 165, 166, 180. II. 183, 184, 185,

Ce lgd |
I77-

193.

— microstoma. I. 98, 99, 153, 157, |
158, 180. |

— microtuberculatus. I. 3, 98, 105,

107, 108. II. 173.
miliaris. J. 3, 86, 88, 97, 98, 104, |
105, 107, 108, 141, 167. II. 173.
multicolor. I. 98, 105, 140. |
neglectus. I. 162.

Neumayeri. I. 98, 103, 104, 105, 106.
norvegicus. I. 3, 94, 98, 99, IOI,
102, 104, 145, I49, I50, 152, 153,
154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 167,
179, 180. Il. 8, 25, 150.
parvituberculatus. 1. 107.

pileolus. I. 114.

pulchellus. I. 108.

rarispinus. I. 153, 157.

Robillardi. I. 95, 98, 105, 109, 110,
II5.

rodula. I. 104.

saxatilis. I. 141. |
Schwartzii. I. 160, 162.
spheera. I. 160.

tenuispinus. I. rSr. II. 181, 193.
toreumaticus. J. 114.
tuberculatus. I. 114.

verruculatus. I. 105, 108, 110, I15.
virens. I. 141.
Wallisi. I. 98, gg, 100, 142, 145. |
rz:

marginata. II. 185, 186, 193.
Michelini. IJ. 185, 186, 193.

morieri. I.

19.

australia. I. 115, 116.
chloroticus. I. 4, 97, 115-116.
rarituberculatus. I. 115, 116.

x07

Fibularia. II. 38, 39.
— tarentina. II. 28.
Fibulariida. 28.

Genicopatagus. II. 87.

affinis. II. ror.

Genocidaris. 1. 86. Il. 1go.

maculata. I. 85, 86, 179. II. 36, 183,
184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 192.
Globiferae. I. 169.
Glyptocidaris. I. 130.
crenularis. I. 130.
Gnathostomata. Il. 86.
Goniocidaris. I. 14,
27, 29.

biserialis. I. 24, 29.
— canaliculata. I. 5, 23, 24, 25-27. Il.
15, 16.

clypeata. I. 15, 18, 24.

Déderleini. I. 24, 28, 30. Il. 5, 16.
florigera. I. 14, 18, 24, 25. Il. 15.
— geranioides. I. 23, 24, 29.
membranipora. I. 24, 25, 26, 27, 173.
mikado. I. 15, 18.

Mortenseni. I. 24, 27.

tubaria. I. 18, 23, 24, 26, 29. II. 15.
umbraculum. I. 24, 26, 29.
vivipara. I. 24, 25, 26, 27, 173.
Goniopygus. II. 26, 27.

Gymnechinus. I. 115, 131, 133, 135, 136.
darnleyensis. I. 136.

Robillardi. I. 136.

12, 18, 23, 24, 26,

Hagenowia. II. $6.

Hapalosoma. I. 8, 56, 64. II. 21.
pellucidum. I. 64. I. 21.
Helgocystis. II. 82, 89.

Helicoidea. Il. go.

Heliocidarine. I. g1, 92.

Heliocidaris. I. 90, g1, 116, 132, 133, 138
130.11: 21.

australia. I. 139.

chloroticus. I. 116, 139.
paucituberculatus. I. 116,
rarituberculatus. I. 139.
variolaris. I. 116.
Hemiaster. II. 87, 90,
106, 107, 158.
apicatus. II. 102.
batnensis. I]. 99,
bufo. II. 106.
expergitus. Il. 26, 59, 96, 97-102,
103-106, 181, 182, 187, 188, 189, 194.
florigerus. II. 102, 105.

gibbosus. II. 97, 100, 102-104, 105,
106.

Mentzi. Il. 17, 97, 99, 100, 102, 104,
105, 189, 194.
Philippii. II. 10g.
tenuis. II. 106.
zonatus. II. 97,
114.
Hemipedina. I. gi. Il. 11.

96, 101, 104, 105,

175.

102, 104-105, 110,

198

ECHINOIDEA. I.

Hemipedina cubensis. I. 130. II. 188, 189,

190, 192.

mirabilis. I. 130.

Heterocentrotinz. I. gI, 93.

Heterocentrotus. I. gI, 95, 129, 130, 132,

133, 138, 139.

mamillatus. I.

183, 193.

trigonarius. I. 129, 130, 139.

Hipponoé. I. 3, 90, 91, 92, 110, 113, 114,

116, 136.

esculenta. I. 94.

Hipponoide. I. go.

Histocidaris. I. 16, 22, 30, 173. Il. 16.

elegans. I. 30, 173. II. 16.

Sharreri. II. 188, 189, 194.

Holaster. II. 87.

Holectypoidea. II. 86, 87, 89.

Holocentronotus. I. go.

Holopneustes. I. 90, 91, 92.

Homolampas. II. 87.

fragilis. II. 158, 189, 194.

Hoplosoma. II, 21.

Hygrosoma. I. 59, 60, 64, 66, 176, 177.

Il. 19, 22, 190.

hoplacantha. I. 59, 64, 176.

luculentum. I. 62, 64, 66, 79, 176.
— Petersi. I. 59, 64, 80, 81, 176. II. 25,

170, 187, 188, 189, 192.
Hypsiechinus. I. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86.
86-90. II. 172, 187,

I29, 130, 139,

coronatus. IL
192.

Infulaster. II. 86, 87.

Kamptosoma. I.
QT, 22)
asterias. I. 61, 65, 176. II. 22.
indistinctum. IJ. 21, 22, 24.
Kleinia. II. 166, 168, 174, 175.

60, 61, 65, 66. II. I9,

Leiocidaris. I. 12, 16, 18, 30.
annulifera. I. 19.
verticillata. I. 6.
Lima excavata. II. 94.
Linopneustes. II. 41.
longispinus. II.
194. ‘
Loncophorus interruptus. II. 132.
Lovenia. II. 87, 134.

ANiOL, mi23; 124.026,
133, 134, 140, 178. II. 26, 27.
albus. L 134.

bullatus. I 134.

gibbosus. I. 134, 178.
Lytechinus. I. 3, 91, 114, 136.

185, 186, 189, 190,

Loxechinus. I. ES;

Macrophthalmus. II. go.
— parvimanus. II. go.
Macropneustes. II. 128, 129.
spatangoides, II. 125, 127, 128-129,
186, 189, 190, 194.
Mellita. II. 1go.

Il. |

Mellita sexforis. II. 185, 186, 189, 193.
testudinata. IJ. 185, 186, 193.
Menuthiaster. IL. 85.

Meoma. II. Igo.

ventricosa. II. 184, 185, 186, 189,
194.

Meridosternata. II. 39, 87, 89.
Meridosterni. II. 84, 85, 89.

Metalia. II. 158.

africana. II. 184, 185, 194.
coste. II. 183, 194.

pectoralis. II. 186, 189, 194.
Micraster. IJ. 43.

coranguinum. Il. 44.

Moera (Moira). I. 122, 190.

atropos. II. 122, 176, 186, 194.

Nacospatangus gracilis. I. 109.
Neolampas. II. 88, Igo.

rostellata. II. 183, 184, 187, 189, 193.
Nina. II. 122, 123.

Nucleolitide. II. 87.

Offaster corculum. II. 86.
Oligoporine. I. 92.
Opechinus. I. 85. IL. 8.
spectabilis. II. 8.
Ophiomusium Lymani. I. 48.
Ova. II. 122, 123.

Palobrissus Hilgardi. II. 185, 186, 189,
194.

Palaopneustes. Il. 41, 54.

cristatus. II. 84, 185, 186, 189, 190,

194.

— hystrix. II. 185, 186, 189, 190, 194.
Palzopneustide. II. 54, 58, 87, 89.
Palzostomatidee. II. 87, 89.

Palzotropus. II. 58, 87, 88, 89, Igo.
Hirondellei. If. 188, 194.
Josephine. II. 185, 186, 189, 194.
Thomsoni. II. 189, 194.
Paracentrotus. I. 124, 126, 131, 133, 134,
135-

Gaimardi. I. 135, 179. IL. 185, 186,
193.

lividus. I. 126, 127, 135, 165, 179.
Il. 181, 182, 183, 193.

Parasalenia. I. 10, 84, 91, 93, 96, 128, 132,
133, 138. II. 26, 27.

gratiosa. I. 127, 138.

P6hlii. I. 128, 138.

Parasaleninze. I. 138, 140.

Paraster. IJ. 121, 122, 123, 175.
gibberulus. II. 123, 175.

Savignyi. Il. 123.

Parechininee. I. 134, 141-142.

Parechinus. I. 85, 108, 109, 123, 124, 131, |

132, 133, 134, 140, 161, 179. II. 173,
174.

angulosus. I. 108, 115, 134.
microtuberculatus, I. 108, 115, 134,
141, 166, 178. Il. 183, 184, 185, 193.

Parechinus miliaris. I. 11, 108, 115, 122,
123, 134, 141-142, 166, 180. II. 181,
183, 184, 193.

Pedicellarize. I. 4-11, 169.

development. I. 5-6.

globiferous.

ophicephalous.

tridentate.

triphyllous.

rostrate. II. 48.

Pelanechinus corallinus. I. 8. Il. 13.

Periaster. II. 90, 106, 107, 108, 120.

limicola. II. 106-108, 162, 166, 186,

189, 190, 194.

maximus. II. 108.

tenuis. II. 106.

Peripatagus cinctus. II. 188, 194.

Petalocidaris. I. 18, 24, 29. IL 15.

florigera. I. 25, 30.

Phormosoma. I. 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52,

54, 55) 57, 61, 62, 66, 68, 173. IT.

18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 190.

adenicum. II. 172.

asterias. I. 46, 57, 6o. II. 21, 22.

bursarium. I. 45, 47, 62, 66, 68.

MW 2050572%

hispidum. I. 44, 61, 65. Il. 6, 22,

Deh Al, AG

hoplacantha. I. 45, 54, 59.

indicum. II. 172.

luculentum. I. 44, 46, 47, 50, 59-

60. II. 20, 170.

panamense. I. 44, 48, 61, 65. II. 24, 25.

Petersii. I. 58, 59. Il. ro, 18.

placenta. I. 6, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54, 56,

58, 61, 62, 66-70, 72, 74, 79, 80,

iu Bris MG eh ai aie} Clos Gr vey

172, 177, 187, 188, 189, 192.

rigidum. I. 45, 48, 62. II. 22.

Sigsbei. I. 66. II. 172, 188, 192.

tenue. I. 46, 47, 52, 55, 56-57, 61,

WGfrfo ME Key Dit,

uranus. I. 47, 51, 57-58, 59, 80, 177.

WOE Ch uh 5p

zealandie. II. 25.

Phrissocystis. Il. 54.

Phyale. II. 80, 82.

Phyalopsis. II. 80, 82.

Phyllacanthus. I. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, go.

annulifera. I. 14, 17.

australis. I. 28, 30.

dubia. I. 18, 30.

gigantea. I. 20.

imperialis. I. 14,

parvispina. I. 18,

Phymosoma. I. 91, 130.

crenulare. I. 130.

Physaster. II. 89.

Pilematechinus. II. 50, 51, 86, 89.

Rathbuni. Il. 50-51, 52, 53-

vesica. II. 51-52, 72.

Plesiaster. II. 175.

Pleurechinus variabilis. IL. 8.

I. 9-11.

17, 18, 30. II. 14.

30.
Grade,

Plexechinus. II. 57, 58, 84, So.
cinctus. II. 54, 55, 56, 57.
hirsutus. II. 54-57, 58, 61, 187, 193,
— Nordenskjéldi. II. 57, 58.
Pluteus. I. 34.
Podocidaris sculpta. I. 188, 189, 192.
scutata. II. 188, 189, 192.
Podophora. I. gt.
Polyporinze. I. g1, 92.
Porocidaris. I. 12, 16, 21, 22, 23, 30, 68.
Cobosi. I. 21, 23, 30. Il. 16.
elegans. I. 21-22, 23. II. 16, 169.
gracilis Déderlein, I. 21, 23, 30.
Sladen. I. 21, 41, 42.
— incerta. I. 21, 23, 27.
Milleri. I. 21, 23, 30. Il, 16.
misakiensis. I. 21, 23, 30.
purpurata. I. 14, 17, 21, 22, 30, 41-
42;173-. IL. 9, 16, 169; 187, 188,
190, 192.
var. Talismani. I. 173. IL. 169.
Sharreri. I. 21, 22-23, 30, 41. II. 5,
g, 10, 16.
Pourtalesia. II. 47, 59, 62, 71, 79, 80-82,
85, 88, 89, 97.
carinata. II. 59, 67, 71, 77, 78, 80,
81, 82, I9g1.
ceratopyga. II. 59, 78-79, 80, 81,
82, IgI.
hispida. II. 61, 78, 80, 81, 82, 191.
Jeffreysi. Il. 41, 58-63, 64, 65, 66,
68, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
83, 180, 181, 194.
laguncula. Il. 59, 67, 68, 80, 81,
82, 83.
miranda. II. 62, 65-66, 67, 68, 79,
80, 81, 82, 189, 194.
paradoxa. Il. 61, 69, 70, 72—77,
78, 81, 82, 187, 194.
phiale. II. 60, 68-72, 73, 74, 77, 78,
80, 81, 82, 187, 194.
phyale. II. 68.
rosea. Il. 79-80, 81, 82.
Tanneri. II. 67, 80, 81, 82.
— Wandeli. Il. 62, 63-66, 68, 75, 76,
78, 81, 82, 180, 187, 189, 194.
Pourtalesiide. II. 54, 58, 84-88, 89.
Prionechinus. I. 82, 83, 84, 86, 88. IL 17.
Agassizii. I. 83.
sagittiger. I. 82, 177.
Prospatangus. II. 132, 176.
Protosternata. II. 87, 89.
Psammechiniens. I. 91.

Psammechinus. I. 3, 5, 90, 91, 108, 114,

115, 118, 131, 133, 135, 136. II. 173,
174, 190.

— Blainvillei. II. 173, 174.

— miliaris. I. gt, 141. HU. 173.

— semituberculatus. I. 3, 108, I15,
136. II. 173.

— subangulosus. I. 108.

— variegatus. I. 3, 108, 114, 115, 136.

II. 173, 174, 185, 186, 188, 189, 193.

ECHINOIDEA. II.

Psammechinus verruculatus. I.
115, 136.

Pseudechinus. I.
Il. 25.

— albocinctus. I. 116, 132, 139, 178.
Pseudoboletia. I. 91, 92, 95, 96, 18-119,
131, 133, 135, 137+
granulata. [. 118. |
indiana. I. 118, 119, 137.
maculata. I. 118, 119, 137.
Pseudocentrotus. I. 122, 124, 126, 131, 133,

135, 137:

— depressus. I. 123, 126, 137.
Pseudodiadematide. I. 130.

Psilechinus. I. 3, 91, 114, 136.
Pygastrides relictus. II. 188, 189, 193.

108, 109,

106, 132, 133, 138, 140.

Rhabdobrissus Jullieni. II. 184, 185, 194.
Rhabdocidaris. I. 12, 18-19.
Rhinobrissus. II. 102.
niicrasterioides. II, 189. 194.
Rhyncopygus. II. 190.
caribbeearum. II. 185, 186, 189, 193.
Rotula Augusti. II. 184, 185, 193.

— dentata. II. 184.

— Rumphii. II. 184, 185, 193.
Salenia. I. 13.
— goésiana. II. 188, 189, 192.

— hastigera. II. 117,
— Pattersoni. Il. 185,
varispina. II. 188,
Salenidee. I. 86.
Schizaster. I. 167. II. 90, 104, '105, 114,
TIO; 120} 122) 0235 91325 91755, 176:
affinis. II. 120.

antarcticus. II. 119, 120, 121.
atropos. II. 122.

canaliferus. II. 116-117, 118-120, 121,
122), 123) 6132) 175) 2183; 194:

— capensis. II. 115, 116, I1g9, 120, 121,
122.

Edwardsii. Il. 116, tg, 120, 121,
123, 184, 185, I94.

fragilis. 1. 167. I. 96, 104, 108-116,
119, 120, 121, 122.

gibberulus. IJ. 119, 120, 121, 122.
incertus. II. 152.

japonicus. II. 114, 11g, 120.
Jukesii. II. 108, 120.
— lacunosus. Il. 108,
T2217 55

latifrons. IJ. 120, 121.

Moseleyi. II. 120, 121.
orbignyanus. II. 109, 117-119, 120,
121, 123, 175, 183, 186, 189, 190, 194.
— Philippii. J. 167. Il. 116, 119, 120,
L2T, 122, 125:

Savignyi. II. 116, 120, 121, 122.
var. major. II. 116.

— Townsendi. II. 120, 121.

— ventricosus. II. 108, 119, 120.

187, 188, 189, 192.
186, 188, 189, 192.
18g, 192.

120, 121,

119,

Schizechinee. I. g2.

199

Schizechinine. I. g1, 135, 140.
Schizechinus. I. 3, g1, 136.
Schizocidaris. II 25, 28.
— assimilis. 25, 28.
Schleinitzia. I. 12, 18.
— crenularis. I. 20, 173.
Scutellidae. I. 94.
Spatagocystis. II. 83, 85, 89.
— Challengeri. II. 82, 83, 191.
Spatagodesma. If. 114.
Diomede. II. 114.
Spatangidee. II. 85, 86, 87, 89, go.
Spatangina. II. 89.
Spatangoida. II. 86, 87.
Spatangus. I. 94. II. 42, 87, 90, 123,
132, I41, 146, 175.
— altus. II. 131.
arcuarius. II. 145.

capensis. II. 130, 131, 190.
interruptus. II.
— ILiitkeni. Il. 131-132.

— meridionalis. I]. 123, 128.

— ovatus. II. 132.

purpurens. IL. 96, 109, 113, 123-128,

129-132, 136, 155, 181, 183, 184,

187, 188, I94.

— Raschi. IL 127, 128, 129-130, 131,
132, 166, 178, 180, 181, 182, 187,
188, 190, 194.

— Regine. II. 123, 128.

spinosissimus. II. 123, 128.

Sperosoma. I. 43, 45, 61, 65.

— biseriatum. I. 44, 62, 65.
Grimaldi. I. 45, 61, 65, 75-78, 81,
177. Il. 170-171, 187, 188, 190, 192.
Spheerechine. I. 92.

Spheerechinus. I. 5, 8, 10, 84, 85, 91, 92, 96,

97, 109, I10, 111, 16-117, 118, I19g,
122, I3I, 135;-197)-L41,, £70;
179.

— australiz. I. 116, 117, 137, 178, 179.
granularis. I. 5, 92, 10g, 116, 117,
122) 127) 167, 165, 167;, 178,179:
II. 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 193.
pulcherrimus. I. 4, 116, 120, 121.
roseus. I. 116, 137, 167. II. 183, 193.
Stegaster. Il. 86.

Stephanocidaris. I. 12, 17, 18, 19, 28, 172.

annulifera. I. 28.

— bispinosa. I. 14, 17, 28, 173. I. 15.

var. Ramsayi. I. 173.

— bracteata. I. 28, 173.

Sterechinus. I. 105-106, 109, 110, 131, 132,

133, 134, 135, 168, 178. II 3. 25,

190.

antarcticus. I. 94, 102, 177, 178.

diadema. I. 178.

horridus. I. 107, 131, 135, 178.

— magellanicus. I. 107, 135, 140, 159,
177, 178.

— margaritaceus. I. 106, 135, 177, 178.

— Neumayeri. I. 107, 132, 135, 178,

Il. 190, IgI.

132.

133)

200

Stereocidaris. I. 12, 14, 23, 26, 27, 29, 35,
AV. 167), Ll) 72. illu ssa

— canaliculata. I. 27, 29, 89, 173, 178. |

II. 16.
— grandis. I. 6, 23, 26, 29.
— incerta. I. 29.
— indica. I. 23, 29, 41.
— ingolfiana. I. 22, 23, 29, 38-41, 43.
II. 9, 10, 187, 188, 189, 192.
— japonica. I. 23, 29. Il. 16.
— JLorioli. J. 170-171, 172. Il. 7.
— microtuberculatus. I. 23, 30.
— Mortenseni. I. 29.
— nutrix. I. 27, 29, 89, 173, 178.
— sceptriferoides. I. 23, 29.
— tenuispinus. I. 23, 30.
Stereopneustes. II. 85, 87, 89.
Sternata. II. 87.
Sternopatagus. Il. 57, 71, 79, 84, 85, 86,
89.
Stolonoclypus. Il. 32.
Stomopneustes. I. 8, 9, 86, 91, 93, 95, 116,
132°0533:
— atropurpureus. I. 127, 134.
— vyariolaris. I. 126-127, 134.
Stomopneustide. I. 133.
Streptosomata. II. 87.
Strongylocentrotide. I. g1.
Strongylocentrotine. I. 137, 140, 162-165.
Strongylocentrotus. I. 8, 10, 90, 91, 96,
97, 114, 117, 118, 119, 121-126, 132,
133, 137, 160, 179. Il. 11, 25, 26, 27,
135.
— albus. I. 92, 95, I19, 122, 123, 167,
168.
— armiger. I. 119, 124.
— bullatus. I. 119, 122, 123.

— carnosus. I. 164.
— chlorocentrotus. I.
138, 164, 178.

— depressus. I. 119, 121-122,

— dr6bachiensis. I. 4, 11, 92, 96, 97,
104, 118, I1g9, 120, 121, 122,
1358, 142, 162-165, 167, 168, 178, 179.

119,

125,

181. Il. 165, 179, 181, 182, 187, 188, |

189, 193.
erythrogrammus. I. 84, 119, 124-125.
— eurythrogrammus. I. 124.

— franciscanus. I. 119, 120, 121, 138.

120, 121, |

_ECHINOIDEA. I.

Strongylocentrotus Gaimardi. I. 3, 119,
124.
— gibbosus. I 119, 122-123, 178, 179.
— globulosus. I 119, 120, 126, 140.
— granularis. I. 163, 164.

— intermedius. I. 3, II9, 120, 121,
138, 178.

— lividus. I. 4, 5, 92, 108, 123, 124,
165, 181.

— mexicanus. I. 119, 120, 126, 140,
179.

— nudus. I. IIg, 120, 126, 140, 179.

— omalostoma. I. I1g.

— pallidus. I. 163, 164.

— pictus. I. 164. ‘

— pulcherrimus. I. 121, 133, 135, 138,
178.

— purpuratus. I. rig, 120, 121, 138.

— tuberculatus. I. 114, 116, 117, I19,
124, 125.

Temnechinus. I. 82, 85.
— maculatus. 1]. 84.
| — Scilla. I. 85.
Temnopleuride. I. 81-90, 91. UH. 14.
Temnopleurus. I. 114.
— Hardwickii. II. 8.
— toreumaticus. II. 8.
Toxaster. II. 87.
Toxobrissus. II. 161, 566, 167, 168, 175.
— pacificus. II. 44, 163, 167, 168.
| Toxocidaris. I. 91, 125, 126, 132, 133, 138,
139, 178.
— armiger. I. 139.
— Delalandi. I. 125.
— erythrogrammus. I. 139.
| — tuberculatus. I. 125, 126, 139.
Toxopneustes. I. 3, 10, g1, 96, 108, 109,
I1O, 113-114, 115, 118, 131, 133, 135,
1362 005 ur, 273.
— elegans. I. 110, 111, m2, 114, 136.
— maculatus. I. 110, III, 115, 140.
— pallidus. I. 162.
— pictus. I. 162.
— pileolus. I. 94, Ilo, Im, I12, 114,
II7, 136.
— roseus. I. 112, 114, 136.
— semituberculatus. I. 110,
114.

III, 112,

Toxopneustes variegatus. I. 110, 12, 114.
Toxopneustide. I. g1, 92, 96, 135, 140,
162-165. II. 14, 15, 27.
Tretocidaris. I. 16, 28. IL 15, 170.
— annulata. I. 16, 17, 28, 172. Il. 7,
169-170.

— Bartletti. I. 16, 17, 28. Il. 169, 170,
185, 186, 188, 189, 192.
— spinosa. I. 17, 28, 172. II. 7, 184,
185, 192.
Tricheelina paradoxa. I. 117.
Trigonocidaris. I. 82, 85, 86. II. 190.
— albida. I. 84. II. 185, 186, 187, 188,
189, 192.
— monolini. I. 84.
Triplechine. I. 92.
Triplechinidze. I. 90, gt, 95, 101, 121, 130,
rgas i nx
Tripneustes. I. g1, 109, I10, 113-114, 115,
116, 131, 133, 135, 136. Il. 11, 190.

— angulosus. II. 184.
— depressus. I. 110, 118, 137.
— esculentus. I. rio, 112-113, 137. II.
184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 193.
— gratilla. I. 113, 137. Il. 184, 193.
— variegatus. I. 111, 13.
Tripneustide. I. 90, 92.
Tripylaster. II. 122.
— Philippii. Il. 123.
Tripylus. I. 122.
— fragilis. II. 108.
Tromikosoma. I. 9, 46, 62, 64, 177.
— Koehleri. I. 45, 65, 78-80, 81, 176.
II. 188, 189, 192.

Urechinidz. II. 39, 42, 53, 54, 55, 57, 53,
72, 85-86, 87, 89.
Urechinus. II. 43, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53)
56, 57, 87, 88, 89.
— Drygalskyi. II. 46.
— giganteus. II. 41, 44, 45, 46, 49,
50, 51, 56.
— lLoveni. IL. 50.
— Naresi. Il. 43.
— naresianus. II. 39-45, 46-54, 61, 62,
71, 85, 88, 187, 189, 193.
— Whyvillii II. 49, 56, 78, 82.

Zirphzea crispata. I. 180.

Dn p &

Plate I.

Spatangus altus Ltk. Type-specimen, actinal side. 1/;.

Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, abactinal side. (Specimen from the «Ingolf»-St. 35.) "1.

Raschi, the abactinal side. 1/

— abactinal side. 1/;.

— side view. 1/,.

actinal

I

— 4.

abactinal side. (Specimen from Bergen.) 1/;.

Ingolf Expeditionen IV, 2.

Th. Bloch fot

1—3 Spatangus altus Ltk. £4—5 Spatangus Raschi Lov. 6—7 Brisaster (Sci ster) fragili
iE g f A

P sos ay
Pat : 26, 2 Fee
er eT i os bake

Vad

Plate Il.

8 Spatangus purpureus. 19 Spat. Raschi. 12, 14, 16 Hybrid of Spat. purpureus and Raschi. 1, 4, 18, 20 Hemiaster expergitus.
3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17 Echinocardium pennatifidum. 5,6, 11 Ech. capense. 2, 10 Ech. flavescens.

Fig. 1. Hemiaster expergitus, abactinal side. 1/3.

— 2. Echinocardium flavescens, abnormal specimen; actinal side. */;.
— 3. —_— pennatifidum, young specimen; side view. 1/;.

— 4. Hemuaster expergitus, actinal side. */;.

— 5. Lchinocardium capense, actinal side. */;.

— 6. — — side view. 1#/;.

— 7. — pennatifidum, young specimen; abactinal side. */;.
— 8 Shatangus purpureus, abactinal side. 1/;.

— 9. Echinocardium pennatifidum, young specimen; actinal side. */;.
— 10. — flavescens, abnormal specimen; abactinal side. */;.
=). ine, = capense, abactinal side. 1/;.

— 12. Spatangus purpureus, hybrid; abactinal side. */;.
— 13. Echinocardium pennatifidum, side view. */;.

— 14. Spatangus purpureus, hybrid; actinal side. */;.
— 15. Lchinocardium pennatifidum, actinal side. */;.

— 16. Spatangus purpureus, hybrid; side view. 1/;.

— 17. Echinocardium pennatifidum, abactinal side. 1/;.
— 18. Hemuaster expergitus, end view. 1).

— 19. Spatangus Raschi, side view. 1/1.

— 20. Hemiaster expergitus, side view. 1/1.

Mortensen. Echinoidea II. Tab. TT.

Ingolf Expeditionen IV, 2. Th.

Th. Bloch fot

Spatangus purpureus O. F. Miill., Raschi Lov., Hemiaster expergitus Lov., Echi

cardium pennatifidum Norm.. capens gp., flavescens (O. F. Miill

Plate III.

2, 3, 7, II, 12, 18, 20-23 Brissopsis lyrifera. 5, 8, 9, 13, 16 Br. alta. 6. 10,17 Br. atlantica. 1 Brissopsts sp.
4, 14, 15, 19 Br. elongata.

Fig. 1. Srissopsis sp. («Talisman»), abactinal side. 1/;.

— 2 — lyrifera, abnormal specimen, actinal side. 1/:.
— 3. — — («Thor»), abactinal side. 1/:.

— - _ elongata, young specimen, side view. 1/1.

— +5. — alta («Blake», St. 49), abactinal side. */;.

— 6. — atlantica («Albatross», St. 2378), abactinal side. */;.
— 4%. — lyrifera, abnormal specimen, actinal side. 1/;.
— 8 — alta («Blake», St. 49), actinal side. 1/;.

— 9g. — — («Albatross», St. 2401), actinal side. 1/;.

— 10. _- atlantica («Albatross», St. 2378), actinal side. */;.
— Il -- lyrifera, abnormal specimen, actinal side. 1/;.
— 12. — — (Mediterranean), abactinal side. 1/;.

— 13. — alta («Albatross», St. 2401), abactinal side. */;.
— 14. — elongata, side view. 1/1.

— 15, a ~ abactinal side. 1/;.

— 16. — alta («Albatross», St. 2401), side view. 1/;.

— 17. -- atlantica («Albatross», St. 2748); abactinal side. 1/;.
— 18. - lyrifera (Bergen), side view. 1/;.

— 19. — elongata, actinal side. 1/;.

— 20. _ lyrifera (Mediterranean), actinal side. 1/;.

— 2i. = — (Bergen), abactinal side. 1/;.

= oy. = — — actinal side. */;.

— 23. — — (Mediterranean), abactinal side. 1/;.

Ingolf Expeditionen IV, 2. Th. Mortensen. Echinoidea II. Tab. ITI.

Th. Bloch et Fr. Riise fot Pe

( er typ

Brissopsis lyrifera (Forb.), alta n. sp., atlantica n. sp., elongata n. sp.

Plate IV.

2, 3, 9, 14-17 Brissopsis lyrifera. 1, 4, 13, 18 Br. elongata. 5, 19 Brissopsis sp. 6—8, 10—12 Hemtaster expergitus,

Fig. 1. SBrissopsis elongata, actinal side. */;.

— 2. = lyrifera (Mediterranean), abactinal side. 1/;.
— 3 — _ — actinal side. 1/;.
— 4. - elongata, abactinal side. ?/;.

— +5. = sp. («Talisman»), side view. 1/:.

— 6. Hemiaster expergitus, abactinal side. 1/;.

— 7. a — side view. 3°5/;.

—= 3 = — actinal side. !/;.

— 9g. Brissopsis lyrifera (Mediterranean), side view. 1/;.
— 10. Hemiaster expergitus, abactinal side. 3°5/;.

— It. — — side view. ?/;.

— 12. — — actinal side. 3°5/;.

— 13. Brissopsis elongata, side view. 1/1.

— 14 — lyrifera (Kattegat), side view. 1/;.

— 15. — — (Kattegat), abactinal side. */;.

— 16. — — (Mediterranean), side view. 1/;.

— 17. — — (Kattegat), actinal side. 1/;.

— 18. — elongata, subanal fasciole and adjoining parts of the test. 2/;.

— 19. sp. («Talisman»), actinal side. 1/;.

Ingolf Expeditionen EV, 2.
} fi ) | { l" Ty

7
bd ’

2%

Fig.

Plate V.

Pourtalesia Wandelt, abactinal side. 2/;.

— — actinal side. (Not fully to be relied upon as regards the limits of the

plates.) */;.

— — actinal side. 2/;.

= abactinal side. 18/, (The upper plates of ambulacra I and V and of inter-

ambulacrum 5 not quite correctly made out here. Comp. Pl. VIII. Fig. 2.)

— — side view. 2/;.

— = actinal side. 18/;.

_ — abactinal side. 1/;.
Aéropsts rostrata, actinal side. 2/;.

— = abactinal side. 2/;.

— — side view. ?/;.

. Pourtalesia Wandelt, side view. */;.

—_ = es Le ae

Jeffreyst, — — 3.

= — abactinal side. 1/;.
Aéropsis rostrata, side view. 2/;.
Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, abactinal side. */;.

= = actinal side. */;.

— = side view. */;.

— ~ abactinal side. 1/;
Aéropsts rostrata, abactinal side. 1/;.
Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, actinal side. */;.
Aéropsts rostrata, actinal side. */;.

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, side view. 1/;.

Ty,

lepeditionen

%

Ingolf £

W,

Pourtalesia

Fig.

Ee

a SS

nan

Plate VI.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) phiale, abactinal side. 7/; (For the apical system and adjoining

plates, comp. Pl. VII. Fig. 7.)
— side view. 7/:.
paradoxa, actinal side. ™8/,.
_ side view. ™8/,.
— abactinal side. 18/,.
-- side view. '8/;.

phiale, actinal side. 7/;.

Plexechinus hirsutus, end view. 2/;.

actinal side. 2/;.

Urechinus narestanus, actinal side. ™5/;.

ae = S50,

. Plexechinus hirsutus, abactinal side. 2/;.

— — Ae

side view. 2/;.

= = FL

actinal side. '5/,, (Not the same specimen as Figs. 12 and 15).

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, abactinal side. °/, (For the apical system and adjoining

plates, comp. Text-fig. 14, p. 75.)
— abactinal side. 1/;.
side view. °/;.

— actinal side. ™8/,.

Th. Mortensen, Echinoidea Il Tab.

fe
iS

ankmeyer
~

Adon

@

Ore

2271719 21 ThMortensen. 2-6, 826,10 20, Bang det

1-27 Pourtalesia phiale W.Th., 3-6, 17-21 Pourtalesia paradoxa Mrtsn.,

8-9 12-16. Plexechinus hirsutus Mrisn.,
10-11. Urechinus narestanus AAg.

|
+

|
oo

ON}

Plate VII.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) phiale, the sub-oral region of the test. '3/; Not the same specimen
as that represented in Pl. VI. Figs. 1—2, 7. The limitation of the ambulacral plates IV. a. 1.
b.1 could not be made out quite distinctly, but it is certain that a.1 was larger than b. 1.

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, opened from the side. The loop of the intestine has been bent backwards
in order to show the course of the stone canal. g. Genital organs. 1/;.

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, part of the stone canal with the axial organ. 1/;.

= — opened from the side, showing the intestine in its natural position; g. the
genital organs of the right side, bent outwards. 1/;.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesias paradoxa, the suboral region of the test. 13/,.

Urechinus naresianus, temale genital organs. ?/;.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) phiale, apical system and adjoining parts of the test. */;.

Urechinus naresianus, opened from the side. The loop of the intestine has been bent back-
wards in order to show the course of the stone canal. 1/;.

Plexechinus hirsutus, apical region of the test. From a specimen 6™™ in diameter. No pores
to be distinguished in the ocular or ambulacral plates. 13/;.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, female genital organs, g, and stone canal, s. 1°/;.

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, female genital organs. 2/;.

— male genital organs. On the stone canal (s) is seen a little swelling, the
axial organ. 2/;.

Urechinus naresianus, opened from the abactinal side; the intestine is represented in its natural
position. */;.

Pourtalesia Jeffreysi, opened from the actinal side; the intestine is represented in its natural
position. The two siphones are distinct. ?/;.

Urechinus naresianus, opened from the abactinal side. The intestine bent aside in order to
show the two siphones. 1/,.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, anterior end of the test, opened from the side. g. Male
genital organs, s. stone canal, ce. oesophagus. °/;.

Spatagocystis Challengert, tube foot. '5/;.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, tube foot. 15/;.

Plexechinus hirsutus, actinostome and surrounding parts of the test. The plates of the actino-
stome have been drawn from another specimen; the specimen, from which the plates of the
test were drawn, had the buccal membrane bent inwards, so that its plates could not be
made out. °/;. |

Plexechinus hirsutus, apical plate and part of the odd anterior ambulacrum. In the apical
plate a small madreporic pore and two larger genital pores are seen. 15/;.

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, tube-foot. 175/;.

Ingoll Expeditionen I 2. Th. Mortensen, Echinoidea Il. Tab. Vi.

F516 AL Th Mortensen 2,4 27S, £

17. Pourtalesia phiale WTh., 2-4, 1-12, VY, 21 Fourt. JTeffreyst. WiTh. 5, 10, 16.18. Pourt.paradoxa Mrtsn.,

6.8. 13.15. Urechinus naresianus AAg., 9, 19-20. Pleaechinus hirsutus Mrtsn., 17 Spatagocystis Challengert A. Aq.

Ji

‘ahd
* 7

Plate VIII.

Fig. 1. Pourtalesia Wandelt, sub-oral region of the test. 9/;.

-- apical system and adjoining parts of the test. The pores of the anterior

mae. —
paired ambulacra were rather indistinct and are perhaps not quite correctly placed.

— 3. Pourtalesita Wandel, sub-oral region of the test. ™/,.

— 4 JSeffreyst, — — - => — 9;

= 8 = = = = ee

— 6. = _ — —- -— — F);,

— 7. — Wandel, apical system and adjoining parts of the test. 13/,.

— 8-11 — JSeffreyst, sub-oral region of the test. 9/;.

I.I is not quite certain.

In the figure 8 the small interambulacral

Ingoll Expeditionen IN, 2. th. Mortensen, Echinoidea I. Tab. Vil

rs. xT )
eo} je\® .
- .
@.:0 . ,
°
®@ eye\°
)
< .
oe
.
.
-
als
9
: )
.
°
.
.
\ 2 Py
ny <
1
.
.
vet
O oe
ie
oe .
. .
/
°
6
fo
. 3 :
.
. - «
e . le
) >
) ® :
ae
>

77

9 10

7-3. 7. Pourtalesta Wandelt Mrtsn., 4-6. S-11. Pourtalesta JSeffreysi WiTh.

Plate IX.

4, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 21, 26, 30—39 Urechinus narestanus. 2, 6, 11, 12, 25, 27 U. giganteus. 3, 5, 17, 24 U. Wyvillit. 19 U. Lovent.
I, 7, 10, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29 Cystechinus clypeatus.

Fig. 1. Cystechinus clypeatus («Challenger» St. 133), globiferous pedicellaria. 7°/;.

— 2. Urechinus giganteus, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, side view. (Comp. Fig. 6). '5/;.

— 3 _ Wyvilliz, — = = Se ae,

— 4 = narestanus («Challenger» St. 302), valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. !5/;.

= 5 — Wyvillit, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, from the inside. 15,.

=e ay giganteus, — - rai = = & — (Comp. Fig. 2). '5/,.

7. Cystechinus clypeatus («Challenger» St. 205), ophicephalous pedicellaria. 37/,.
— 8. Urechinus naresianus, spicule from tube-foot. '5/,.

— 9. — — valve of globiferous pedicellaria, from the inside. 125/,.

— 10. Cystechinus clypeatus («Challenger» St. 205), valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 5°/,.
— 11. Urechinus giganteus, valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. *%5/;.

— 12. — —_ — - triphyllous — 125/..

— 13. Cystechinus clypeatus («Challenger> St. 334), valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 125/,.
— I4. — — ( — - 205), — - tridentate == 70/,.
— 15. Urechinus narestanus, valve of tridentate pedicellaria, coarse form. 7°/;.

— a0: — = =< = = 7°/t-

— 17. ~ Wyvilliz, — ar == = 62/,,

— 18. — narestanus, — - ophicephalous — 125/,,

= 10) — Lovent, — - tridentate sae 50/,.

— 20. Cystechinus clypeatus («Challenger» St. 334), valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.

— 21. Urechinus naresianus («Challenger» St. 302), valve of coarse tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
— 22. Cystechinus clypeatus («Challenger» St. 205), valve of ophicephalous(?) pedicellaria. 7°/;.
— —_ ( — - 133) — - short tridentate — 70/',.
— 24. Uvrechinus Wyvillit, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. *5/,.

— 25 _ giganteus, — ~- large tridentate — foie
— 26. — naresianus,— - triphyllous — 225].
— 27. — giganteus, — - small tridentate — Toi

— 28. Cystechinus clypeatus («Challenger» St. 205), valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
— 29. — — ( _ - 334), — - triphyllous — 125/..
— 30. Urechinus naresianus, primary spine from the abactinal side. 37/,.

— 31. — -- miliary — 79/;.

— 32. — —— tridentate pedicellaria, coarse form. 5°/;.

— 33. - aa o — slender — 79/;.

— 34. os — valve of tridentate pedicellaria, slender form. 15/,.
— 35. — - globiferous pedicellaria. 7°/,.

— 36. _ — valve of tridentate pedicellaria, slender form. 15/;.
— 37. -- — ophicephalous pedicellaria. 79/;.

— 38. = — tridentate pedicellaria, slender form. 7°/;,.

/

— 39. — _ spine from the peristome. 37/;.

Th. Mortensen, Echinotdea Il Tab. IN.

Urechinus narestanus A.Ag., giganteus AAg., Wyvillir (AAG), Lovent (A.Ag.), Cystechinus elypeatus A.Ag.

Plate X.

2, I5—17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 36-38 Plexechinus hirsutus. 8, 9, 11, 14, 22, 26 Pilematechinus Rathbunt. 1, 4, 7, 13, 24, 28,

“)

29 P. vesica. 5,6, 30 Calymne relicta. 39 Echinocrepis cuneata. 3, 12, 33 Cystocrepis setigera. 10, 18, 20, 35 Spatagocystts

Challengeri.
Fig. 1. Pilematechinus vesica, tridentate pedicellaria (comp. Fig. 4). 5°/;.
— 2. Plexechinus hirsutus, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 125/,.
— 3. Cystocrepis setigera, — - ophicephalous — 125/,,
— 4. Pilematechinus vesica, — - tridentate — (comp. Fig. x). 5°/;.
— 5. Calymne relicta, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
— 6 ~ o- —- = = — 79).
— 7. Pilematechinus vesica, globiferous pedicellaria. 5°/,.
— 8 _ Rathbuni, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
— 49g. — -- — - globiferous — side view. 15/;.
— 10. Spatagocystis Challengert, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
— 11. Pilematechinus Rathbunt, — - globiferous - from the inside. 125/',
— 12. Cystocrepis setigera, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 15/,.
— 13. Pilematechinus vesica, — - tridentate — 50/,.
— 14. — Rathbunti, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 15/;.
— 15. Plexechinus hirsutus, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 125/,.
— 16. — _ —- - — — 125 fT.
— 17. = _ — - triphyllous - 175/43.

— 18. Spatagocystis Challengert, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/,.

— 19. Plexechinus hirsutus, valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 15/,.

— 20. Spatagocystis Challengert, valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
— 21. Plexechinus hirsutus, primary spine, side view. (Comp. Fig. 31). 4°/;.
— 22. Pilematechinus Rathbunt, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.

— 23. Plexechinus hirsutus, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 175/,.

— 24. Pilematechinus vesica, — - short tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

— 25. Plexechinus hirsutus, spheeridia. %5/,.

— 26. Pilematechinus Rathbuni, valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 15/,.
— 27. Plexechinus hirsutus, spicules, represented in their relative position in the tube-foot. 175/;.
— 28. Pilematechinus vesica, valve of buccal tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

— 29. — — - = 5°/;,
— 30. Calymne relicta, miliary spine. 5°/;.

— 31. Plexechinus hirsutus, primary spine, front view. (Comp. Fig. 21). 4°/;.
— 32. — — miliary — %5/,.

— 33. Cystocrepis setigera, ophicephalous pedicellaria. 7°/,.

— 34. Plexechinus hirsutus, globiferous pedicellaria. 15/,.

— 35. Spatagocystis Challenger, rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

— 36. Plexechinus hirsutus, tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

— 37. — filament of actinal tube-foot. 175/,.

— 38. _ — spine from the actinal plastron. °/;.

.— 39. LEchinocrepis cuneata, tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

Th. Mortensen, Echtnotdea Ih Tah. X.

—aeo
==

Ne

aia

aT

Gatos

Tn Mortensen dei. BE Rea

Plexechinus hirsutus Mrtsn., Pilematechinus Rathbuni AlAg., Vvestca (AAG), Calymne relicta WiTh.,

Echinocrepis cuneata <A.Ag., Cystocrepis setigera (AAq.), Spatagocystis Challengert A. Aq.
Gd: P ug G: EGY, uh ay,

Plate XI.

4, 7—10, 30 Pourtalesia Jeffreyst. 1, 13, 14, 18—20, 23, 34—37, 40, 41 P. Wandeli. 2, 3, 5, 6, 17, 21, 24, 25, 27—29, 32, 42—44
Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, 12, 33 P. laguncula. 11 P. Tanneri. 31 P. hispida. 15, 26 P. rosea. 16, 22, 38, 39

Fig.

Helgocystis (Pourtalesia) carinata.

Pourtalesia Wandeli, rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, valve of tridentate pedicellaria, from the inside. 15/,.
= = — — - ophicephalous — 125/\,

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria, side view. 15/;.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 15/,.

= = — — - ophicephalous — side view. %25/;.
Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria, from the inside. %5/,.
= — — - tridentate — 175).

— = rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
-- — valve of rostrate pedicellaria, from the inside. (Comp. Fig. 30). 7°/:.
— Tannerit, — - — = TN ie
— laguncula, — - ophicephalous pedicellaria. 15/,.
— Wandeli, ophicephalous pedicellaria. 7°/;.
— _ valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria, side view. '5/;.
== rosea. — - tridentate = 125).
Helgocystts (Pourtalesia) carinata, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, side view. (Comp. Fig. 22).
Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
Pourtalesta Wandeli, valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 125/;.
— — — - rostrate — from the inside. (Comp. Fig. 23.)
_ — primary spine, from the inner part of the buccal cavity. (Comp. Fig. 34).
Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, primary spine, from the inner part of the buccal cavity.

7°/s

Toye
30/,,

5°/,.

Helgocystis (Pourtalesta) carinata, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, from the inside. (Comp.

Fig. 16). 79/;.

Pourtalesia Wandelt, valve of rostrate pedicellariz, side view. (Comp. Fig. 19.) 7°/;.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
— a — spheeridia. 125/;.

Pourtalesia rosea, ophicephalous pedicellaria. 7°/;.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, valve of rostrate pedicellaria, from the inside. '5/;.
— — = = - = — side view. !5/;.
_ — — tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.

Pourtalesia Jeffreyst, valve of rostrate pedicellaria, side view. (Comp. Fig. 10). 7°/;.
= hispida, — ~- tridentate — 125/,.

Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, ophicephalous pedicellaria. 7°/;.

Pourtalesia laguncula, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.

Wandeli, primary spine, from the invagination, nearer the edge. (Comp. Fig.

30/.,
Pourtalesta Wandelt, = — from the actinal plastron. *%/;.
— — the point of a primary abactinal spine. 3°/;.
-— — miliary spine, front view. (Comp. Fig. 41). 15/;.
Hlelgocystis (Pourtalesta) carinata, miliary spine. 4°/,.
— — — valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
Pourtalesita Wandeli, tridentate pedicellaria. 15/;.
_ -— miliary spine, side view. (Comp. Fig. 37). '5/:.
Echinosigra (Pourtalesia) paradoxa, clavula. 7
— — miliary spine. 15/,.
— _ — primary abactinal spine. 35/,.

ay)
/I

20).

Ingoll Expeditionen IN? %. Th. Mortensen, Echinoidea I. Tab. Xt.

Pourtalesta Jetfreyst Wh, Wandelt Mrtsn, paradoxa Mrtsn., laguneula A Ag, Tannery eLAg.,

canmata AAg., hispida AAg, rosea AAg-

* \ae a 7 e
7 i ee
db Pas | tf ; :
st : 7. ys i =
se ae é 7 §
ears he ¥
on 1
J , ba '
7 7 id
ro iva
,
oe _ f fs sitet i
is en
Wa ‘ j e
ae ji J 4
; | " : in
fos Aig! F
eniayy a '
48
. 7 ;
:
_7 7h) 1 ! .
ake : :
ly 7
ifs ( i? ty if
—— i. |
7 aD
me = a viF 9h iv?
T aceatic
ee Meal ertane\':4 Peal
BVO REO Pee ees "
if ea 5
q , a = 5
' 46 ' -
a.
=
\
Bijse 18 i i 2
4y
oly ae -
TELA yas i
i ‘
4 i 3)
s+
'
: i
er
s ; _ ! ¥
- i 7 7
+ > pe 7 7 -
7 >< 7: : ”
i fan a — , Sealea

o

i Jon
mw
»
|
ay 7
aa
ié
(sey

Plate XII.

4, 6, 9, 13—20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29-31 Echinocyamus pusillus. 1, 3, 5, 8, 10—16, 21, 25, 28 Ech. grandiporus. 2, 7, 17, 24

14
==

4
— 5:
6

|
om

— 30.
— 3I.

Echinocyamus grandiporus, actinal side. °5/;.

Ech. macrostomus.

macrostomus, ophicephalous pedicellaria. 3°5/;.
grandiporus, actinal part of the test, from the inside. 7/;.
pusillus, ophicephalous pedicellaria. 37/;.
grandiporus, abactinal side. °5/;.
pusillus, head of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 3?5/;.
macrostomus, triphyllous pedicellaria. *4°/;.
grandiporus, valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria, (the two other valves of the
same pedicellaria are represented in Figs. 11 and 12). 3?5/;.
pusillus, endcrown of miliary spine, from above. 3?5/;.
grandiporus, — - — _ — — 325/,.
i valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. (Comp. Figs. 8 and 12.) 325/;.
_ — - — — ( — — 8 — ILI.) 35/;.
= ophicephalous pedicellaria. 35/;.
— part of the test, showing the glassy protuberances among the spine-
bearing tubercles. 5°/;.
— primary spine. 5°/;.
— miliary — 175/;.
macrostomus, young specimen, abactinal side. °/;.
pusillus, miliary spine. 175/;.

— primary — %/;.

— valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 325/;.
erandiporus, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 325/,.
pusillus, part of the test, showing the glassy protuberance between the pores

of the petals. 5°/;.

— valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 3?5/,.
macrostomus, actinal side. §/;.
grandiporus, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 325/;.
pusillus, part of the actinal side of the test, showing the two large buccal pores

and groups of small pores. 37/;.

— actinal side. °/;.
grandiporus, tridentate pedicellaria. 175/,.
pusillus, actinal part of the test, from the inside. 7/;.

— tridentate pedicellaria. *5/,.

— abactinal side. °/;.

In the figures 1, 5, 17, 24, 16 and 31 the small pores are made somewhat more conspicuous

than they are in nature.

NUL.

Echinotdea 1. Tah.

Th. Mortensen,

-O

Ingoll Expeditionen I,

Echinocyamus pusillus (O0.F. Mill.) grandiporus n.sp., macrostomus rsp.

, ee a

7 7 a Ss
7 an y 7; a .
.
4
fi 7
j j
~~
4
‘
4
7
- on
7 ,
a
i
, e _
a
— .
-

Fig.

Plate XIII.

1. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, 3". Abactinal side. The number of plates in the paired ambu-

Ww

lacra could not be made out with certainty. 15/;.

2™™, Abactinal side. The number of plates in the paired ambu-
lacra not quite certain, likewise the upper plates of the paired
interambulacra and the plates of the anal area a little uncertain.
Zoi

2'5™™. Abactinal side. 17/;.

2™m, Actinal side. The plates of the three anterior ambulacra
are a little uncertain. °/;.

38=", Abactinal side. The number of plates in the paired am-
bulacra not quite certain. 13/;.

4:5™™, Actinal side. 13/;.

— Side view. 13/;.

— Abactinal side. 13/;.

3mm Side view. 15/;.

55™™. Abactinal side. 1/3.

66™™, Actinal side. 9/;.

— Abactinal side. 9/;.

fas m_ = = Sy I:
um = eet We
II am, — as 5/

Abactinal side. 3°5/;.

Echinoidea I. Tab. XM.

Th. Mortensen,

Ingolt Expeditionen IV; 2.

@)
®) @) On %)

XO) ®& OY® gw

@)®
= ®) ®)

@)

i)

Funke Leipzig.

LithAnstv EA.

fot.

6-20. Th.Bloch-

7

7-15. Th. Mortensen del,

Brisaster (Schizaster) tragilis (Dib. Kor)

.

ft =
is?)
é

fs

Uy

oats oh

Pel, i Mia) ool “Serial, 1

ua a) a eal

i Fi
f yeh - ( CU ee at 1a) j
7 -
‘ y? en) j
‘ aot
: 5 oh. ee ae” ;
6 ae id
a Ski! oleae Fos try
- '
: ¥ :
A, sii _ ! ‘
‘p wail vi bef
: ! Ty l
pice eis F
teenie ; *
ye } 7 pS } i
if i win ft

. , 7 WN
it '- toe?
is rT. ee Pe

Me wil! rest!
Ny y

Pi :
€ a) att
7 7

Jee! nitaligetions Hannity seg rt!

- ~ i = :
: a) ware
VIA APS ee
oma \ T =i) é 4! T™ :
pe oi Wi $9 2,08 wes JA, ¥ ie
wer ‘wi; me é y
Au ries Aw hike! f TL,
76 Th en iT
Lifeylet! Vy mat f
>a | edibe Carey Oak

iy Ay
be
i 1“
_ ; ret
> tree i]
) - | oi
j is
io? ipl
» v) 7
Tia hf Ti j v4
i epeiliv i ti wa }A
ig | ri
(ves) j ij
- ES ry
- i ?
¥
}
; +
}
= ‘ i} ; ;
ij ' f {
Bhi ' ae - i
‘ ~!
- a inl] “t
patddeO ie pitiatina
‘ i : , Ly .
it 1a AYR as hnri) hea a
ath? f

> A lye 7
ide tess Wid Maple ee inl
‘ ih JAtppe i fiig aii

™
iy -
"
a ' 7
J
ie
if 7
-
i 5
vi\
=
7 i
,
-
| > Ve
' a ’
¢
7a ;
i @ ‘
4
2
Ly 6 a
- as >
if 4
a
a 7
pais )
' Bo? ’
7 , - 12
. ~~ es
. 10°<ti
‘ ow hf
‘ai \ 5
te ao
ie
| i 5
i ee aL i"
j
.
1 v ~
4 “4 4} i
i
‘ lief
ei ive
bir Gay
‘ti : ’

oe

a
7 7
‘
oh
-

@

j

41

{

7 ®

Plate XIV.

3, 7) I1, 13—16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 31, 37, 39, 43, 46, 50, 51 Brisaster fragilis. 33, 42, 48 Br. capensts. 9, 19, 22, 26, 34, 40, 41, 45
Schizaster canaliferus. 2, 12, 17, 23) 27, 32, 49 Sch. orbignyanus. 10 Sch. Edwardst. 30, 38 Schizaster n.sp.(?) 6, 9, 28, 35, 44, 47

Periaster limicola. 4, 5,21 «P limicola» (Arafura Sea, «Challenger>).

Periaster limicola» («Challenger», Arafura Sea). Globiferous pedicellaria. 5°/;.
Schizaster orbignyanus, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. (Comp. Fig. 32). 37/;.
Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of small tridentate (? rostrate) pedicellaria. 7°/,.
«Periaster limicolay («Challenger», Arafura Sea), valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 7°/;.

= = — — — ophicephalous pedicellaria. 7°/;.
Periaster limicola, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 7°/;.
Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of small tridentate (? rostrate) pedicellaria. 7°/,.
Schizaster canaliferus, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. (Comp. Fig. 40). 37/;.
Periaster limicola, globiferous pedicellaria. 35/;.
Schizaster Edwardst, valve of tridentate (? rostrate) pedicellaria. 7°/;.
Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
— 12. Schizaster orbignyanus, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
— 13a.b. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, spicules of tube-foot. 15/;.

Fig.

HoH
HOD SI DNBO DH

— 14. _ — — valve of globiferous pedicellaria, from the inside. (Comp.
Fig. 16). 5°/;.

— 15. — os — rostrate pedicellaria. 37/;.

— 16. — — valve of globiferous pedicellaria, side view. (Comp. Fig. 14).
70],

— 17. Schizaster orbignyanus, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.

— 18. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/;.

— 19. Schizaster canaliferus, — - small rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.

— 20. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, — - —_ tridentate — oes

— 21. «Periaster limicola» («Challenger», Arafura Sea), valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.

— 22. Schizaster canaliferus, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.

— 23. = orbignyanus, — - rostrate — 37/;.

— 24. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, abnormally ending in two teeth,
from the inside. 7°/;.

— 25. —_ — — valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.
— 26. Schizaster canaliferus, valve, of rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/;.

— 27a.b. — orbignyanus, spicules from tube-foot. 175/;.

— 28. Periaster limicola, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.

— 29. Schizaster orbignyanus, stalk of globiferous pedicellaria. 37/;.

— 30. — n. sp.(?), valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/;.

— 31. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 175/,.

— 32. Schizaster orbignyanus, terminal opening of the valve of globiferous pedicellaria. (Comp. Fig. 2). 7/1.
— 33. Brisaster (Schizaster) capensis, valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. 37/;.

— 34. Schizaster canaliferus, spicules from tube-foot. 175/;.

— 35. Pertaster limicola, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.

— 36. «Periaster limicola» («Challenger», Arafura Sea), valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 175/;.

— 37. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/;.
— 38a-c. Schizaster n.sp.(?), spicules from tube-foot. 175/;.

— 39. Lrisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 175/,.
— 40. Schizaster canaliferus, terminal opening of valve of globiferous pedicellaria. (Comp. Fig. 8). 7°/:.

Ae i = valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
— 42. Brisaster (Schizaster) capensis (type specimen), valve of tridentate (? rostrate) pedicellaria. 7°/;.
— 43. — — Jragilis, rostrate pedicellaria. 37/,.

Pertaster limicola, valve of large tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

— 45. Schizaster canaliferus, valve of large tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

— 46. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.

— 47. Periaster limicola, large tridentate pedicellaria. 25/,.

— 48. Brisaster (Schizaster) capensis, valve of large tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.
— 49. Schizaster orbignyanus, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

- 50. Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis, valve of large tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.

— 5I. — — — globiferous pedicellaria. 37/,.

XIV;

Kehinoidea IL Tab.

Th. Mortensen,

ry
A

xpedittonen IK.

gol F.

In

7th. Mortensen del

Brisaster (Schizaster) fragilis (Dib. Kor), capensis (Studer), Schizaster canalrterus (Lamk.), orbiqnyanus AAG.

Edwardst Cotteau,n. sp’, Pertaster limtcola A.Ag.

>

'
oe | g
x eq Detiphe

ap mveesels We tet

a »
ibis reg 5

Pr
L Gru Hus!

i ind oa

: - mF q — '

i Rist) - oe Ws vi Peni iin al
“Te Ve 7 My, oniistionge 2 Ai

r d ue Te iff dat
i. ; a Saver aeerr, s
+ of RUM os aed Le Lb ay \ uc
14-3 Ait iS : nity is
an ei! a) as
7) baat

* =

=a
t Bind ys! toaheern. ‘ls Pra
a i Tite im t iy « eae |
Fl H js 26 ‘ } ot
f ais eae hi
‘ ‘2 Pra ‘
iit
5 sitio sl i g
5 rr | a2 i
7 ¥ igge! sts ‘ ‘
ee | |
ofa hon oe tio. Fl
Goria roy Me oe i
Re ¥ peVaE lest we MSS ne Tt)
- . ; ” lot te aft THil<stia - Tes ae oe i
7 a a 5 eo omy cso all God wit
a oe ds a
a =~
Fe i iio

a

Bi raf i rc cP: tHe Byles “29in -
= an ee er
oT 7 pir inn!
- a °,
‘p te ) = i? %
x i Aid) a _
= bce & iege Ria eT
ry a re - pe! Li . re a Cf
[) 7 aa) “tea
Vo “4 iiprel 3 racy ed
’ ( jars iaesnatl 4 =
i
ft wre “¥; j wi! A f ie dgvachy) wy .
dither vise el! Tats oe hihiger se”

LAN le ee

Ps : 2

Plate XV.

I, 2, 5, 8, 13, 1I9—21, 29, 37, 40, 43, 52 dévopsis rostrata. 6, 12, 27, 34 A. fulva. 10, 14, 15, 22, 25, 32, 36, 39, 41, 51

Aceste bellidifera. 9, 16—18, 24, 26, 30, 31, 35, 38, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50 Hemzaster expergitus. 42, 46 H. gibbosus. 3, 7, 11 «H». szonatus

TONE OPH

io)

4, 33, 49 H. lenuis. 23, 28 «H.» florigerus.

Aéropsis rostrata, rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
_ — valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
«Hlemiaster» zonatus («Challenger», St. 126), valve of globiferous pedicellaria; side view. (Comp.
Fig. 7). 5°/,. .
Hemiaster tenuis, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
Aéropsts rostrata, frontal tube-foot. 1/;.
— fulva («Challenger», St. 191), valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
«flemiaster» zonatus («Challenger», St. 126), valve of globiferous pedicellaria, from the inside.
(Comp. Fig. 3). 5°/;.
Aéropsts rostrata, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
Hemiaster expergitus, rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
Aceste bellidifera, rosette plate, proximal part, in side view. °/; (Comp. Fig. 39).
«Hemtiaster» zonatus, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.

/

Aéropsts fulva («Challenger», St. 191), valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. 15/,.
— rostrata, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/,.

Aceste bellidifera, — - globiferous — 5°/,.
= = — - rostrate = 5°

Hlemuaster expergitus, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/;.

— — — - small tridentate pedicellaria. *5/,.

-- _ — - rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
Aéropsis rostrata, rosette plate, outer end, from below. 5°/,.

— = _ — proximal end, from below. "%5/;.

— — valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
Aceste belidifera, —_ - — — 50],
«Hemuaster» florigerus (type specimen), valve of tridentate pedicellaria.’ 15/,.
Hemuaster expergitus («Talisman»), valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 5°/;.
Aceste bellidifera, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
Flemiaster expergitus, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 15/,
Aéropsis fulva («Challenger», St. 191), valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
«Tlemiaster» florigerus (type specimen), spicule from tube-foot. 175/;.
Aéropsis rostrata, valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.

Hlemiaster expergitus, valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. 15/,.

—_ — - ophicephalous — T25/7.
Aceste bellidifera, — - rostrate — 5°/;.
Hlemiaster tenuts, o= globiferous — 50/,,

Aéropsis fulua («Albatross>, St. 3393), valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 45/,.
Hemiaster expergitus, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 175/,.
Aceste bellidifera, valve of small tridentate (? rostrate) pedicellaria. 15/,.
Aéropsis rostrata, — ~- triphyllous pedicellaria. 15/,.
Flemiaster expergitus, spicule from tube-foot. 175/,.
Aceste bellidifera, rosette plate, inner part, from below. (Comp. Fig. 10). ™°/;.
a.b. Aéropsts rostrata, spicules from tube-foot. 7ONrs
Aceste bellidifera, spicule from tube-foot. ™°/;.
Hemuaster gibbosus, tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
Aéropsts rostrata, miliary spine, with «ampulla». 5°/,.
Hemuaster expergitus, primary spine, from the anterior end of the test, side view. 35/;.
— = small tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
_ gibbosus, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 5°/,.
— expergitus, globiferous pedicellaria. 5°/;.
—_ -- valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 5°/,.
= tenuis, small tridentate pedicellaria; (the skin dark coloured), 5°/;.
-- expergitus, primary spine, from the actinal plastron. 35/,.
Aceste bellidifera, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 125/,.
Aéropsts rostrata, tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,. .

~s

AVE

Echinotdea Il. Tab.

Mortensen,

Th.

Ingoll Expeditionen Il/ 2.

CS 2@ ae
COCs!

Aeropsis rostrata (WiTh.), fitlva (A.Ag.), Aceste bellidifera WiTh., Hemiaster expergrlis Low,

gi bbosus AAG. zonatus A.Ag., tenis CAAg-), florigerus Slider.

.

Pi}

a
; )
A
+ ct. eae *4 ier
7 : — df i \ ; i,
ele eens ee Me eee Oa
oe cy ae 7 y
arait = le La | 5 fs*p=d is a
Baur) #4 are") es “aha oa ; a
yon ~ cv ae - — Ng 7 -
Pate Demi et ae SM SA
Th a Pe ee le eR HT
| + Oe vs Ls
le Like
en
A
wihy ir? 2
/
me
Se
ae.
yee
\ oA
. =) '
.
an. ;!
af; ."
oe ors
hyn
rs
ee,
ad
ly; i
Hid Ss
7? ia

Pd:
a”
an
a
_
a
_¥
.

Tes

HH

rN)

DSTO aa CS)

a)

Plate XVI.

5—I0, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34 Spalangus purpureus. 17, 23, 28 Spat. Raschi. 11, 19 Spat. altus (? Litkent).
13—I5, 20, 30, 33 Macropneustes spatangoides. 12 Echinocardium capense. 16 Ech, mediterraneum. 18 Ech. pennatifidum.

21 Ech. cordatum. 26 Ech. flavescens.

Spatangus purpureus, valve of large tridentate pedicellaria, side view. (Comp. Fig. 9). 7°/;.

“= - triphyllous pedicellaria. ©/;.

Macropneustes spatangoides («Challenger», St. 33), valve of short tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.

=e — = _ — - ophicephalous —
Spatangus purpureus, ophicephalous pedicellaria. 7°/;.
= — valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 175/,.
— — — - short tridentate — 70/s.
— -- short tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.

70/7.

-- — valve of large tridentate pedicellaria, from the inside. (Comp. Fig. 1). 7°/,.

Spatangus purpureus, — - short = _— side view. 4°/,.
= altus (Liitkent?), valve of short tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
Echinocardium capense, — - triphyllous oa 240/,,

Macropneustes spatangoides («Challenger», St. 33), valve of short tridentate pedicellaria.

— — («Albatross», St. 2655), — - — = —
— — («Challenger», St.33) — - —_ triphyllous —
Echinocardium mediterraneum, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 24°/,.
Spatangus Raschi, valve of short tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
Echinocardium pennatifidum, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 24°/1.
Spatangus altus (Liitkent?), valve of short tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.

Macropneustes spatangoides («Challenger», St. 33), valve of large tridentate pedicellaria.

Echinocardium cordatum, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 24°/,.
Spatangus purpureus, —_— - — — a5 fr.
— Raschi, — - tridentate — 50/7,
_~ purpureus, subanal area of a specimen 4™™ in diameter. 15/;.
— — valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
Echinocardium flavescens, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 24°/,.
Spatangus purpureus, valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. 14°/,.
— Raschi, — - large tridentate — TN ire
_ purpureus, specimen 4™™ long, actinal side. 15/,.
Macropneustes spatangoides («Challenger», St. 33), tridentate pedicellaria. 35/;.
Spatangus purpureus, specimen 4™™ long, side view. 15/;.
-- _ subanal area of a specimen 9™™ in diameter. 8/,.
Macropneustes spatangoides («Challenger», St. 33), large tridentate pedicellaria. 3°/,.
Spatangus purpureus, specimen 4™™ long, abactinal side. 15/,.

ate
50/;,,
175),

37/y.

Ingol’ Expeditionen UGK Th. Mortensen, Echinoidea Il. Tab. XV7.

Spatangus purpurenus OF Mill. Raschi. Lov. altus Ltk. Macropneustes spatangoides AAg.,

Echinocardtum.

3s

magia ar
r oN; we tee Maha]
ahh one pit bagy) fre i

‘Sine he

4 W } ie 7
i - i] ) F
¥ i =! eee iT ibd ies ,
Oe 5
= 4 ;
‘ a ® Mage ¥ i} sg a.
_ yi tis :
i , | |
1 7D > es i ‘
+ ' rt |
AM J) eee Hi ,
re . i) 2 _
ie mile i hand jl ite :
ae + vn ad of ;
—¢ ae es ie [te ‘y - |
_ jroo i) : ;
Lol einey |
iby aie efi
7 ui | |

MAE yh) 63 7
Léa wy ete) Mee |
wi6euts . | | Z

ya ae Pils ee | : |

prec Oat : oe ) .

i mr my 7h ‘ ‘ ° a
y Pea ore | |

i

Plate XVII.

15, 2I—23, 30, 34, 37, 38, 43, 48, 49 Echinocardium cordatum. 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 27, 31, 40, 41, 45, 50 Zch. flavescens. 5, 6, 9, 13,
16, 35, 39 ch. capense. 1, 18, 20, 24 —26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 42, 44 Ech. pennatifidum. 2, 3, 12, 19, 47, 51, 52 Ech. mediterraneum.

14, 36, 46 Ech. intermedium.

1. Echinocardium pennatifidum, tridentate pedicellaria. 25/,.
2 = mediterraneum, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
3 — — — ~- rfostrate — 50/,. :
4. — Jlavescens, — - globiferous — side view. (Comp. Fig. 10). 7°/;.
5. — capense, valve of small tridentate pedicellaria. (Comp. Figs. 35, 39). 7°/1.
6 = _ — - —~ rostrate — (Comp Fig. 16). 7°/;.
7 _ fiavescens, — - ophicephalous — 175].
8 = = = — — side view. 175/;.
9. = capense, — - small rostrate — Tire
10. = flavescens. — - globiferous — from the inside. (Cmp. Fig. 4). 7°/:.
Tes — — — - small tridentate — 70/7.
12. — mediterraneum, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 5°/;.
13. — capense, — - small tridentate — 79/;.
14. _ mtermedium, tridentate pedicellaria. 35/,.
15. -- cordatum, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
16. _ capense, — - -- -- (Comp. Fig. 6). 7°/;.
7 flavescens, — - _ — side view. (Comp. Fig. 40). 79/1.
18. — pennatifidum, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, side view. (Comp. Fig. 29). 7°/;.
19. — mediterraneum, — - small tridentate — 79/70
20. — pennatifidum, — ~- rostrate -- (Comp. Figs. 28, 32). 5°/;.
2 — cordatum, SS Ris — _ (Comp. Fig. 34). Specimen from
@Oresund. 7°/;.
22. _ — — - tridentate -- (Mediterranean). 7°/;.
23. = = a = = 37/.
24. — pennatifidum, -- - —_— — 37/y.
25. a — — - — — side view. (Comp. Fig. 26). 37/;.
26. — — — - — — fr. the inside. (Cmp. Fig. 25). 37/r.
27. -- Jlavescens, — - _ _ 37/;. («M. Sars»).
28. = pennatifidum, — ~- rostrate — (Comp. Figs. 20, 32). 37/r.
20. — = — - globiferous — fr. the inside. (Cmp. Fig. 18). 37/;.
30. — cordatum (Tamaris), valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.
3I. — Jlavescens, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. (Bergen). 37/;.
32. _ pennatifidum, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. (Comp. Figs. 20, 28). 5°/:.
= eet _ _ — - tridentate — 5°/,,
34. — cordatum, — - rostrate — (Comp. Fig. 21). 7°/; (Naples).
35 - capense, — - small tridentate pedicellaria. (Comp. Figs. 5, 39). 7°/:.
36. — mtermedium, — ~- rostrate — (Tamaris). 7°/;.
37. — cordatum, — - globiferous _ DN ie
38. — -- — - rostrate = 70/,,
39. — capense, — - small tridentate — (Comp. Figs. 5, 35). 7°/1-
40. = Jlavescens, — - rostrate — (Comp. Fig. 17). 7°/;.
4I. = — large tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.
2. -- pennatifidum, tridentate — 37/;.
43. = cordatum, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.
44. — pennalifidum, rostrate pedicellaria. 37/,.
45. -— Jlavescens, globiferous — 35/,.
46. — intermedium, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
47. — mediterraneum, globiferous pedicellaria. 3°/,.
48. — cordatum, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.
49. — - globiferous pedicellaria. 35/,.
50. — Jlavescens, rostrate _— 50/,,
SI. = mediterraneum, Clavula. 5°/;.

52. = — rostrate pedicellaria. 35/,.

chinotdea Il. Tab, XVI.

I:

Th. Mortensen,

Ingolf Expeditionen ae

a a

Norv.,

pennatifidum

Mill.) capense n.sp-,

Echinocardtum cordatum (Penn), flavescens (OF:

mediterraneum Gray, intermedium msp.

7 7 . @ :
i _ a ia 7 A

ve. 2 a woe =< : =

we 7 e > = -
i : is : ' = i :

v > - e ~ &
i ow > 7 a ]
—— wet LP.

- »
a 4x i) 7 F
. 7 7 ai ve ay)
Ces ii _
as at "
_
cd S }
a4 a 7
j g 7

Piney GA Meee: pada 111 iy Sere i

A ¢

ah
iy

= , i

:
,
¥
:
)
‘
x '
i i
si 7 -
.
j .
r =e =
= i bi
_ S
i=, tard :
= - a 7
= ‘yt 7 =

Plate XVIII.

1, 6, 12, 18, 25, 26 Brissopsis lyrifera. 3, 23 var. capensis. 7, 8, 14 «Br. lyrifera>, Simon’s Bay, «Challenger». 4, I1, 22, 27, 29

Br. alta. 5, 9, 10, 13, 19, 20, 24 Br. atlantica. 2, 15—17, 21, 28 Br. elongata.

Brissopsts lyrifera, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, side view. (Comp. Fig. 25). 5°/:.

— elongata, — - ophicephalous — 175/5.

— lyrifera, var. capensis, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 5°/;.

— alta, valve of triphyllous pedicellaria. 175/;.

-- atlantica, globiferous pedicellaria, short form. 37/;.

_ lyrifera (Mediterranean), valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 7°/;.

— «lyrifera» (Simon’s Bay, «Challenger»), valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. (Comp.
Figs. 8, 14). 175/;.

_ «lyrifera» — (— -- -- — - — — side view.
(Comp. Figs. 7, 14). 175/;.

— atlantica, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, short form. (Comp. Fig. 19). 5°/:.

= = — - ophicephalous — 175/;.
< alta, — - triphyllous — (Comp. Fig. 4). 175/;.
= lyrifera, — - — = 175/.

o atlantica (?, young specimen, Gulf Stream), valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. 175/;

_ «lyrifera» (Simon’s Bay, «Challenger»), valve of ophicephalous pedicellaria. (Comp.
Figs. 7, 8). 175/;.

— elongata, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. (Comp. Fig. 21). 5°/;.

-= _ spicules from tube-foot. 175/;.

_ — rosette-plate of frontal tube-foot. 15/;.

lyrifera, spicules from tube-foot. 175/;.

— atlantica, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, short form. (Comp. Fig. 9). 5°/:.

— — globiferous pedicellaria, slender form. 4°/;.

— elongata, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. (Comp. Fig. 15). 5°/1.

— alta, spheeridia. 175/;.

= lyrifera, var. capensis, upper end of stalk of globiferous pedicellaria. 37/;.

= atlantica, valve of globiferous pedicellaria, elongate form. 5°/;.

— lyrifera, = ok == — (Comp. Fig. 1). 5°/;.

-- — globiferous pedicellaria. 2°/;.

- alta, — — SII

-- elongata, -- —_ 37/y.

= alta, valve of globiferous pedicellaria. 7°/

Ingolf Expeditionen WER: Th. Mortensen, Echinotdea Il, Tab. XVM.

Brissopsis lyrtfera (Forh.), capensis n.var, alta iw.sy.,atlantica 1.sp., elongata n.sp.

4i

of

ety he

a { auld? ith
Ue aaa) mA:
his eden his ;

as fa ; Pa a)

Plate XIX.

3, 6, 10, 15, I8—21, 29, 34 Brissopsis lyrifera. 2, 9 var. capensts. 7, 24, 26, 27 Br. alta. 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23, 25, 28,

Ts

30—33 Br. atlantica. 12,17 Br. elongata.

Brissopsts atlantica, tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.

lyrifera, var. capensis, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
— valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 37/,.
atlantica, — ~- rostrate a 5°/,.
ok aoa 2S = = larger form, side view. 5°/;.
lyrifera, small, rostrate pedicellaria. (Comp. Fig. 34). 37/;.
alta, valve of oe -- 5°/,.
atlantica (2), («Talisman») valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
lyrifera, var. capensis, valve of small rostrate pedicellaria. 175/,.
— valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
atlantica, tridentate pedicellaria. 37/;.
elongata, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/;.
atlantica (?) («Talisman»), valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
— (?), valve of 8-valved «tridentate» = 7°/,, (Comp. Figs. 22, 30).
lyrifera (Mediterranean), valve of rostrate pedicellaria, side view. (Comp. Fig. 21). 5°/;.

atlantica (?) («Talisman»), — - small rostrate pedicellaria. 7°/;.
elongata, valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 175/;.
lyrifera, = s — = 72
= — - small tridentate pedicellaria. '75/;.
— (Mediterranean), valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 37/,.
= — — - — = (Comp. Fig. 15). 5°/1.
atlantica (2), valve of 8-valved «tridentate» pedicellaria. (Comp. Figs. 14, 30). 7°/r.
— (?) («Talisman»), valve of rostrate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
alta, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
atlantica, valve of small rostrate(?) pedicellaria. 7°/,.
alta, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 7°/,.
— tridentate pedicellaria, fourvalved. 7°/,.
atlantica, valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
lyrifera, — - — = 37/1.
atlantica (?), 8-valved «tridentate» pedicellaria. 5°/,.
— (?) («Talisman»), valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.
= valve of tridentate pedicellaria. 5°/,.

— ra a =a >> 5°/; .

lyrifera, rostrate pedicellaria. 37/,.

Ingoll Expeditionen I17 2.

Th. Mortensen, Echinoidea Il. Tah. XIX.

o

:

ARO

Brissopsis lyrtfera (Forb), capensis n.var:, alta n.sp., atlantica n.sp, elongata n.sp.
:

ives tNGCOLF-EXPEDITION

1895—1896.

THE LOCALITIES, DEPTHS, AND BOTTOMTEMPERATURES OF THE STATIONS.

Depth | | Depth | | | Depth
piston Lat. N. | Long. W. in Bottom-| Station | Lat. N Long. W. | in | Bottom-) Station | Tat we: \Lenetw. in Bottoni-
Nr. Danish | temp. Ne] | Danish | temp. || Nr. Danish | temp.
fathoms | | fathoms | | fathoms
~ ——— el Sa : = : =
re 62° 30° 8° ar’ 132 7°2 24 | 63°06 | 56°00 1199 2°4 | 45. | 61°32" 9° 43 643 4°17
2 | 63°04 9° 22’ 262 503 25 | 63° 30° | 54225) | 15828 1 3 e3 46 | 61° 32% 11° 36’ 720 2°40
3 63°35 || 10° 24" | 2725 ||| (O25 | 63° 51’ | 53° 03° i ipese | 47 | 6r° 32, | 13°'40' 950 3°23
4 64° 077 TOM 20 237 | 225 26 O305 71 | 52° 4I’ 34 | 06 | 48 6ne33 270) 5 comm | 1150 B07
5 | 64° 40° 12° 09g’ 155 | 64° 37° | 54° 24° 10g | 49 62° 07’ | 15° 07" | 1120 2°9I
Gh pal 1632143, ||| 14°34" go 7°0 27 | 64° 54’ | 55° 10 393 | 3°8 50 62° 43° | 15°07’ | 1020 3°13
7 63° 13 15 vA’ 600 4°5 285) | 650 74: | 55°42’ | 420 | 305 51 64° 15° 14° 22’ | 68 7°32
8 | 3° 560° 24° 40 136 | 6°o 29 65° 34 «| 54°31 68 o0°2 52) yi) 1632557 13232 420 7°87
One| 64° 18’ 27° 00" 295 5°8 30 | 66° 50° | 54° 28 | 22 | 1°05 53 63° 15° 15° 07 795 3°08
10 | 64° 24 28° 50’ 788 3°5 31 | 66° 35° | 55° 54 88 1°6 54 63° 08 15° 40" 691 3°9
It 642346 | 31° 12% 1300 1°6 | 32 662.35 || 56°38) 318 SOO ales 5; | 63°33 15° 02% 316 5°9
12 | 64° 38’ | 32°37 | 1040 | 0° 33 67757 || 55° 30 35 | 08 || 56 | 64°00! | 15°09! 68 7°57
13 Orie anes 65) an o22 3°0 34 G5ee79)| $4276. | Wess | | 52 | 63°37 | 13°02 350 3°4
14 64° 45° 35° 05, | 176 | 4°4 35 65° 16 | 55° 05" 362 | 3°6 58 | 64° 25° 12° 0g 211 0°8
15 66° 18’ | 25° 59° | 330 | —0°75 36) | || 6250; | 56° 21’ | 1435 re5 | 59 | 65° 00 11° 16’ 310 |—o%!
16 65° 43° 26° 59’ 250 | 6°r 37 60° 17 | 54° 05 | Saat 60 | 65° 09 | mocko70 | 124 0°9
17 62° 49’ 26° 55 745 ad a8) mins ocr: | 51° 05 | 1870 | no | 6r | 65°03 13° 06° 55 0°4
18 61° 44’ 30° 29° TES ScOmn|aens9 62° 00’ | 22° 38° 865 2°9 | 62 | 63° 18 19° 12° 72 7°92
19 6oli2g7 7) 34°14" 1566 | 2°4 4o | 62°00 | 21° 36 845 303 3 | 62° 40 19° 05 Soo 4°o
20 58° 20° 40° 48’ 1695 | 1°5 41 | 61° 39 17° 10 1245 2°0 64 | 62° 06 19° 00 IO4I Bon
21 58° or | 44°45 1330 2°4 42 | On: sAre || TOseG 7" 625 0°4 | 65 | 6r° Bae 19° 00! 108g 3°0
22 | 58°10’ | 48° 25 1845 ToA 43 | 61° 42" 10° 11’ 645 0°05 | 66 61° 33° 20° 43° 1128 3°3
23 | 60° 43° | 56° 00" ramon Se 44 | 61° 4x | 9°36 | 545 | 498 || 67 | 61°30" | 22°30° | 975 | 3°0
| used |

| | | Depth | Depth | Depth |
sya | Long. W.| Lat. N. | in loess Station Lat. N. | Long. W. in | Bottom-|| Station Lat. N. |Long. W. in Bottom-
Nr. | Danish | temp. Nr. | Danish | temp. Nr. Danish | temp.
| fathoms | | | fathoms fathoms F
| | |
68 62° 06° 227300 CAS alse g2 | 64° 44° | 822.5 2am O70 1°4 118 _ | 68° one 8° 20° | 1060 | —I°o
69 62° 40° | 22°17 589 3°9 93 | 64° 24° | 35° 14° 767 | x°46 119 67° 53° 10° Ig’ l Foro —1°9
7o | 63° 09° | 22°05 134 7°0 94 | 64° 56 | 36° 19 204 4°r 120 | 67°29 | 11° 32” 885 | —1°0
71 63° 46 | 22° 03 46 | 65°31" | 30°45" 213 121 66° 59° | 13° 11 529 Oud
72 | 63°12" | 23° og" [pnaen | 7 95 | 65°14’ | 30°397 | 752 2° | otzes | 66a" | rd aa Ses 1°8
73 62° 58 22033) | 486 | TI 96 | 65° 24 | 29° 00° 735 oo 23) 66°'52" | 15° 40" 145 2°0
fA «| 622207! | 240 6F | 695 | 4°2 97 | 65° 28° | 27° 39 450 Seo 124 | 67° 40° | 15° 40! 495 | —0o°6
61° 57 25° 35 761 98 | 65° 38 | 26° 271 138 5°9 125 | 68°08’ | 16202’ | 729 —o°8
| 61° 28’ | 25° 06" | 829 | 99 (sie |) Base 187 6°r 126 | 67° 19/ 15° 5200) 2ognn|E=ocs
75 61° 28’ | 26° 25° | 780 | 4°3 100 66° 23° | 14° 02! 59 0°4 127 | 66° 337 20° 05/ 44 | 5°6
76 60° 50° |= 26° 50° | 806 4°r Tor | 66° 23° 12°05" | 537. | —0°7 128 66° 50° | 20° 02” 194 0°6
77 ‘| 60° 10° 26° 59 | 95st 3°6 ' z02 | 66° 23/ | 10° 26" | 750 | —o°9 129 66° 35° | PWG | Ly 6°5
78 | 60°37 | 27°52’ | 799 | 495 103 | 66°23 | 8°52) 579 | —0°6 130 | 63°00’ | 20° 40° | 338 | 6°55
79 60° 52’ | 28° 58’ 653 | 4°4 104 66° 23° 72250 1957 | —I1°r 131 | 63° 00° | 19° 09! 698 | 4°7
80 61° 02° | 29° 32’ | 935 | 4°0 105 | 65° 34° Poeaie | 762 —o°S | 132 | 63° 00° 17° 04" 747 4°6
$1 61° 44’ | 27° 00 485 | 6°r TOG” | (65°°340 || 8 2%sas 447 | —0°6 133) | 63° a4" | -xr°24) | ego) |p Nene
82 6n8is5: [ayo 28% | 824 | 4°1 | | 65° 297 8° 40 | 466 134 6225347 si TOL 26; 299 | 40x
83 62° 25 | 28° 30 gi2 3°5 107 G52 sans Tonks | 492 | —0°3 135 62° 48’ 9° 48° 270m || eOnet
62° 36’ ~| 26° or’ 472 108 | 65° 30° | 12°00 | 97 | ror |} 136 63° or 9? rr 256 | 4°8
62936 | 25° 30 401 Tog | 65° 29° | 13° 25) 38 1°5 137/05 || OS clay &l WmnSer Se” 297 | —0°6
84 62° 58’ 25° 24° | 633 4°8 110 | 66° 44° TI 33° 781 —o°S 138 63° 26° 7° 56 471 | —o°6
85 OgPtonies 25tioy | 170 | III | 67° 14 8° 48’ 860 | —o°9 139 63°a67 | 72ig0: 7o2 | —o°6
86 65° 03'6 | 23° 47'6 76 maw) |) Cf Gar 6° 44’ 1267 | —r°r | 140 | 63° 209 Cay 780 —o°?°
87 65° 023 | 23° 56’2 | 110 | LUZ || 69%3 16 |) P7067 1309 | —1°o 141 63° 22’ 6° 58’ | 679 | —0°6
88 64° 58 | 24° 25 76 6°9 II4 | 70° 36° 720% 773 || —1°o 142 63° 07 7° 05° | 587 | —0°%6
89 | 64°45" | 27° 20" | 310 8°4 115 7o° 50’ | 8° 297 86 o°1 143 | 62°58’ | 7° 09’ | 388 | —0%4
go 64° 45° | 29° 06 568 4°4 116 | 70° 05" 8° 26’ 270) 5 || —o74) 144 62° ast ane 276 1°6
gl 64° 44 31° 00 1236 3° | 117 69° 13 S223" 1003. | —I°o |
| |

——>-0++$+-0<—___—

+

i

o~ J
BPEEWEC RE WN fe eer

5.

Seep
=

Fa