20 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



the spine, which Loriol has got from Paris, has really been of C.baculosa — such a changing of 

 loose spines in a museum is not absolutely inconceivable. The C. Liitkeni described by Loriol in 

 the same work, seems rather to be the real C. annulifera, which must then be very nearly related to 

 C.bispinosa, perhaps identical with it. Bedford (35 p. 274) also regards C. Liitkeni as synonymous 

 with C.annulifera Lamk., but at the same time he seems to think it to be identical with Lor id's 

 C.anmtlifcra, which cannot be correct. Doderlein, who has examined a specimen of Loriol's C. 

 annulifera, finds this species to be highly consistent with C. baatlosa. • Einen Unterschied zwiseheu 

 den beiden Arten kann ich nur in der Farbung der Primarstacheln finden; denn selbst die Form der 

 Primarstacheln kann bei bestimmteu Individuen beider Arten identisch sein. — Nur die Farbung des 

 Schaftes ist verschieden, indem L. annulifera Ouerbinden zeigt, die L. baailosa fehlen; die eigenthum- 

 liche mid auffallende Tiipfelung des Stachelhalses dagegen, die sonst nirgends zu beobachten ist, 

 findet sich bei beideu Arten in gleicher Weise. Nachdem aber eine Autoritat wie Al. Agassiz auf 

 Grund eines reichlichen Materials die Frage nach der moglicheii Identitat der beiden Arten uberhaupt 

 nicht aufwirft, kann ich es nicht wagen bei meinem ganz unzulanglichen Materiale eine solche zu 

 behaupteu. Ich kann hier nur constatieren, dass die oben beschriebeue jugendliche L. annulifera nach 

 ihren sanimtlieheu Charakteren, abgesehen nur von der Farbung der Stacheln, unbedingt als eiu 

 junges Exemplar von L. baatlosa gelten konnte (116 p. 24). Prominence is also given to the fact 

 that the pedicellarise are quite identical. In another work (245) Loriol gives a thorough description 

 and figures of C. baatlosa, but its resemblance with the C. anmdifcra 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. baatlosa Lamk. and C. aninilifcra 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. bispinosa 

 Lamk. (perhaps synonymous with it). The latter is the more probable. An examination of the type- 

 specimens, especially their pedicellarise, will easily decide this question. To be sure, Perrier has 

 figured pedicellarise 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 Doderlein (116 p. 25) Schleinitzia crenularis Studer is very nearly related to C. 

 baatlosa; 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. Doderlein, 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 pedicellarise of the type-specimen have been examined. 

 Studer only figures the small form of the globiferous pedicellarise. 



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 pedicellarise are peculiar. The large globiferous ones (PI. 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 



