20 TH. MORTENSEN, (Schwed. Südpolar-Exp. 



But most probably the locality was incorrect; until it is proved that the type spe- 

 cimen — if it exists any more — is really different from the Patagonian specimens, 

 there is no reason to deprive this species of the name cana/iculata. 



It naturally followed from the confusion of Eiirocidaris nuirix a. o. species 

 with canaliculata, that the latter was stated to be exceedingly variable. Judging 

 from the by no means small material at my disposal I must maintain that it is not 

 exceptionally variable. The length of the radioles, it is true, may vary considerably, 

 but otherwise I find the characters fairly constant; especially I have always found 

 the peculiar deep median ambulacral and interambulacral furrows distinct, though the 

 ambulacral one may be rather narrow. Also the pedicellaria.- I find rather constant 

 (comp, above p. \6 — 17). 



In the »Ingolf» Echinoidea I. (p. 170) I gave a preliminary description of a new 

 species, Stereocidaris Lorioli, from the »Challengers St. 320; in the »Challenger» 

 Echinoidea it was referred to Dorocidaris papillata. (In the »Panamic Deep Sea 

 Echini» (p. 228) this error is still maintained, D. papillata being still noted as occurr- 

 ing at La Plata and the Philippines.) Clark (»The Cidarida;» p. 212), though joining 

 me in distinguishing this form from papillata, maintains that Stereoc. Lorioli is only 

 a synonym of Anstrocidaris canaliculata, stating that he has all transitional forms. — 

 That the species does not belong to the genus Stereocidaris s. str. I can easily agree 

 (though I should like to examine all the characters of Lorioli before stating so de- 

 finitely); but that it should be only a synonym of canaliculata I must doubt. I 

 have never found in canaliculata globiferous pedicellaris recalling in the shape of 

 their valves those found in the t)-pe of Lorioli (sIngolfs-Ech. loc. cit. Fig. 7). On 

 the other hand. Prof. Clark, who disregards the differences found in the pedicellariae 

 of the Cidarids, may perhaps on that account have been led to overlook minor 

 structural differences, which may possibly be found. In any case I cannot feel con- 

 vinced that the species shortly described by me under the name Lorioli is syno- 

 nymous with canaliculata, until a renewed and fuller examination of the type 

 specimen has shown that it cannot really be distinguished from that species. 



In the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen are preserved two specimens, labelled 

 »Altata Salmin. 1870», which belong in any case to the genus Anstrocidaris: probably 

 they are even A. canaliculata, though some minor differences may be pointed out. 

 In case the locality is correct, they will perhaps prove to be a distinct species; but 

 I think it rather more possible that the locality is wrong, seeing that A. canaliculata 

 has otherwise not been recorded from that region. * In any case these specimens 



* In his paper >Fort3atte kritiske og beäkrivende Bidrag til Kundskab om Sostjernerne (Asteriderne)». 

 Tredie Rsekke. (Vid. Medd. Naturh. Foren. Köbenhavn 1871 p. 2S9) LÜTKEN mentions these specimens and 

 several other Echinoderms as being maintained by Salmin to have come from Altata. On account of 

 several of these Echinoderms being Patagonian forms LÜTKEN doubts the correctness of the locality for 



