Appendix. 



la a paper by D. 1 1. Te n n e n I on "The early influence of the spermatozoa 

 upon the characters of Kchinoid larvae" (Papers from the Tortugas Labora- 

 tory of the Carnegie Inst. Washington. Vol. V, 191 1) some observations 

 on the early developmental stages of Eucidaris tribuloides (Lamk) are 

 recorded. It is evident Unit Ihe larva of this species agrees closely with 

 that of Eucidaris Thouarsi (comp. p. 22, PI. V, Figs. 12). In the Pluteus. 

 (') flays old, represented in his figure 6 (p. 133) the skeleton is shown; the 

 posloral rods are fenestraled, horizontally directed. One cannot help being 

 struck by the resemblance with the Echiiiophileus transversus shown by 

 this young larva, and - in spile of the ophicephalous pedicellariac - the 

 conclusion seems almost unavoidable that Echinophiteus transversus really 

 is the Cidom-larva. 



The paperisnot recorded either in the "Zoological Record" or the "Biblio- 

 graphia /oologica." It was therefore only per chance that I discovered it in 

 time for mentioning this important observation by Tennenl in this place. 



When speaking of the phylogenetic importance of the larva of the 

 viviparous ()]>hi<nwlus he.mclis (p. 238) I forgot to mention the larva of 

 C.hirodold mlifcni, which, although developing within the body cavity of 

 the mother, has also fairly distinct ciliated bands like those of the typical, 

 free-living larva?. 1 ) 



Attention may still be called to an interesting paper by I. Stanley 

 (iardiner: "Notes and observations on the distribution of the larva' <>l 

 marine animals". (Ann. Mag. Nat. I list. VII. Ser. XIV, 1901, p. 103 -110), 

 in which the problem of the importance to be ascribed to marine larv;e 

 "in distributing spieies and genera from shore to shore, from one littoral 

 /.one to another" is discussed. In general the views .of Stanley (iardiner 

 are not in contradiction to those set forth in the present work, and I 

 do not see any reason for entering on a detailed discussion thereof, the 

 more so as I most sincerely agree with the author in the main object of 



') H. I.. ('. 1 ;i rU. Development <>r ;in Apmlnus II<>l<>tliuri;ni (('.liiruclola rolilcno. .lonrn. 

 Kxperim. /.mil. IX. HMD. 



32* 



