NO. 5 CLARK : ECHINI OF WARMER EASTERN PACIFIC 319 



There are 4 specimens of this interesting Dendraster in the Velero col- 

 lection. The holotype is the largest, with the others 37-39 mm long; the 

 smallest 36 mm wide. They resemble the type in color and in ever}' other 

 respect. They were taken in Bay San Sebastian, Vizcaino, west coast of 

 Lower California, in 17 fms on a sandy bottom. The delicate coloration, 

 the long white primary spines and the very narrow poriferous zones are 

 quite distinctive. 



Type. — Holotype, AHF no. 50, 3 paratypes. 



Type locality. — Bay San Sebastian Vizcaino, Lower California, 17 

 fms, August 28, 1932. 



Distribution. — Bay San Sebastian Vizcaino, Lower California. 



Depth. — 17 fms. 



Specimens examined. — The tj^pe and paratypes from 1 station. 



Genus ENCOPE L. Agassiz 



In establishing the genus Encope L. Agassiz (1840, Cat. syst. ectyp. 

 Echinod. Mus. Neocom. p. 6; 17) mentions only the species grandis. This 

 species accordingly is the genotype. To take a species not originally in- 

 cluded in the genus as the genotype is against the rules and against common 

 sense. In a letter to me of May 8th, 1947 (the last but one he wrote to 

 me) Clark writes: "A young palaeontologist here (viz. Dr. Durham) 

 who is working on a Monograph of fossil Encopes insists that grandis is the 

 type. As you of course know, I consider that emarginata is the type. If you 

 agree with him that grandis is the type, I'll have to make some changes 

 in my MS ; but if you agree with me that emarginata is the type then I 

 shall be comfortably settled. At any rate grandis and emarginata are not 

 congeneric, so one of them must have a new name." 



It is clear that Clark thus leaves to me the decision of the question 

 which species is the genotype of Encope — and there cannot be the slightest 

 doubt but that grandis is the genotype. Further, I thoroughly disagree 

 with Clark in seeing two diiiferent generic tv^pes in grandis and emarginata. 

 The only noteworthy difference is that the edge of the test is thicker in 

 grandis than in the other species; but whether the edge is some 5 mm or 

 only 2-3 mm thick is certainly not a difference of generic value, and any 

 difference of morphological value does not exist between grandis and the 

 other species. Particularly it must be emphasized that the internal struc- 

 ture is exactly alike in both. 



As said in the preface I think Clark is here making too many species ; 

 but without having access to the collections on which he is basing his 



