PEDICELLARLE. 661 



{PL IILf. e ; PL IV. f. 5, 15 ; PI X.f. 7 , n - u ; PI- XF.f. e; PL XXVI. 

 f. 3, 4, 16), articulating at its base upon a small granule of the test ; this is 

 surrounded by a muscular sheath expanding into a somewhat swollen por- 

 tion, with a thimble-shaped knob at the end. This knob, though it seems 

 solid and compact at first sight, is in reality split into two or three wedges 

 {PL X. f. 15; PL XXVI f. st ; PL XXV. f. se ; PL XXVI. f. is, is; PL 

 XXV. f. 89), which can be opened and shut at will. When open, these pedi- 

 cellarire may be compared to a three-pronged fork, except that the prongs 



well established by Peters in 1853. which is well known to every writer on Echini (Eehinothrix), is nowhere 

 alluded to. except under the name of Savignya, given to it some time after by Desor. In those species 

 where the pedicellarise are most abundant and seem to play an important part (Temnopleurus, Salmacis. 

 etc.), the whole subject is passed over in a few words ; no mention even is made of Grube's sii^sestions as 

 to the pedicellaria? of these interesting genera. It cannot be from want of material, for there is ample 

 material of alcoholic species of Temnopleurus. The following blunders have crept into his Systematic 

 Catalogue. We find, on page 14G, Echinus subangulosus BL, E. longispinus Ag., E. lezaroides A(j.\ this 

 we presume from an examination of the specimens. A little further on the same species appear in a new 

 genus, as Psammechinus subangulosus Ag., P. longispinus BL, P. laganoides ; this time entered in his 

 catalogue from the Catalogue Raisonne of Agassiz. Lezaroides is a calligraphic error in the label of P. 

 laganoides. The Museum of Paris i* said to possess only one species of Astropyga ; there is a fine 

 series of A. pulvinata. No species of Echinus is examined (for want of specimens), yet the best 

 possible series of Echinus acutus exists in the Museum. The genus Sphaerechinus is completely mis- 

 represented, being made to include the typical Echinus esculentus Lin. and Toxopneustes gibbosus, while 

 Sphaerechinus brevispinosus of Desor, the type of Sphaerechinus, is placed in Toxopneustes. Loxechinus 

 purpuratus (from Mendocino, California) appears ns Echinometra No. 274, Echinometra lucunter is 

 ascribed to Gray, and in the same genus we find Echinometra (Podophora) Quoyi BL, which does not 

 appear in Podophora at all. All the MS. species of Acrocladiae of Blainville and Valenciennes are taken 

 as valid. 



In the irregular Echini the following errors occur. Michelinia elegans Mich, is said not to exist in 

 the Museum collection ; there is a large series of this species under the name Laganum Lesueuri. Encope 

 grandis is omitted. Echinodiscus digitatus and Rotula augusti, the same species, appear in two different 

 genera. No mention is made of Clypcaster subdepressus (Clypeaster prostratus Rav.~). We have two 

 new species of Brissopsis from the Baltic. Lovenia is spelled Loevenia. Meoma nigra Gray is placed 

 in the genus Brcynia Echinocardium cordatum anil Echinocardium ovatum appear (from the Baltic) 

 as new species of Amphidetus, No. 171 ami No. 193. We find Amphidetus Novae Zelandiae of Vol., 

 nothing apparently being known of Gray's species from the same locality. Moera atropos exists in the 

 Museum collections. Lovenia quadrimaculata Val. must have been placed in the genus Lovenia without 

 any examination; it is only a Maretin planulata. 



I have been perhaps too particular in pointing out the systematic errors of this paper, but as the details 

 are remarkably accurate, and the. drawings are admirably done, it was important that the value of the 

 generalizations should be known, and the nature of the specific determinations be clearly recognized, 

 before making use of this material, which is most important as an immense accumulation of new facts, 

 and can be usefully applied as far as genera are concerned, but upon which no reliance can be placed 

 as far as the specific distinctions claimed for it in the memoir of Perrier are concerned, unless the above 

 discrepancies are taken into account. 



