The Ecliinoderm Fauna of South Africa. 383 



the published record from that place (See Junod, 1899. Bull. Soc. 

 Vaudoise, vol. 35, p. 281, footnote to an appendix to a list of insects!). 

 But there are two specimens before me from Delagoa Bay which 

 were sent to the South African Museum for identification. There is 

 no room for doubt that they are toreumaticus ; hence Junod's identi- 

 fication and record are vindicated. The larger is 38 nun. in diameter 

 and is notable for the long, slender primary spines, those at the 

 ambitus being 24-26 mm. in length; they are distinctly banded on 

 the distal half. The other specimen is only 26 mm. in diameter and 

 the longest primary spines are only 10-12 mm. long; moreover very 

 few of the spines show any indication of banding, and those only 

 very faintly; one might well say the spines were unbanded. In 

 this particular the specimen is very near reevesii but the abactinal 

 system proves beyond question that it is toreumaticus. On the whole 

 these two specimens are very similar to specimens of the same size 

 from Japan. They are much less like those from the Persian Gulf. 

 Whether this species is confined to Delagoa Bay remains to be 

 seen. If such is the case, it may have been accidentally introduced 

 in some way, possibly on a foul ship-bottom. 



* ORECHINUS MONOLINI. 



Trigonocidaris monolini A. Agassiz, 1879. Proc. Amer. Acad., 



vol. 14, p. 203. 



Orechinus monolini Doderlein, 1905. Zool. Anz., vol. 28, p. 622. 

 1906, VALDIVIA Ech., p. 196; pis. XXV, fig, 1; XXXV, fig. 6. 



The VALDIVIA took a single specimen of this East Indian species, 

 with the following, southeast of Mossel Bay, in 276 fms. 



* LAMPRECHINUS NITIDUS. 



Doderlein, 1905. Zool. Anz., vol. 28, p. 622. 1906, VALDIVIA Ech., 

 p. 190; pis. XXXIII, figs. 1, 2, XXXV, fig. 11. 



This little sea-urchin is known only from a single station, about 

 a hundred miles southeast of Mossel Bay, Cape Colony in 276 fms. 

 Two specimens were taken. I have little doubt it is identical with 

 the preceeding species, the differences given by Doderlein seeming 

 to be trivial and unreliable. 



ECHINIDAE. 



This large and widely distributed family is not extensively repre- 

 sented in South Africa, for of the five species here listed two occur 



