86 



Lat. 33° N., long. 129° 24' E., 30 faths. (Schönau); Lat. 23° 57' N., long. 118' 33' E., 

 28 faths. (Schönall); Lat. 35'5'N., long. 128° 22' E., 25 faths. (Schönan); Lat. 25" 28' N., 

 long. 120" 29' E., 3(5 faths. (Schönau). Further Prof. Döderlein has taken the 

 species in Sagami-Bay, at Yogashima and Kadsiyama, Japan (he has kindly lent me 

 the specimens for examination); it is this species which is figured in PI. LXI. 

 Fig. 5, 5a of Döderlkin's „Echinoidea von Thursday Island und Amhoina" under 

 the name of Pleurech. uariabilis juv. 



Perhaps there will prove to be one more species of Pleiirechinus, allied to 

 ruber and variegatus, in the Japanese seas. Among the specimens sent me from 

 Prof. DÖDERLEIN there is a specimen with larger pits and fewer tubercles than 

 variegatus: the anal opening is central. Otherwise it agrees with variegatus. 

 Whether or not it be really a distinct species, I shall not try to decide from the 

 scanty material before me. 



The two species, ruber and variegatus, are evidently nearly related, both 

 agreeing in having much smaller pits than the other species of Pleurechinus. They 

 are easily distinguished from each other. The pores are much larger in ruber than 

 in variegatus; the tuberculation is also rather different. Finally the different colour 

 instantly conveys the impression of their being two very distinct species. — PI. 

 variegatus has also some resemblance to siamensis as to habitus; it is, however, 

 very easily distinguished from that species by the small pits, the numerous 

 tubercles, the not thickened spines, the impression on the genital plates, besides 

 by the form of the globiferous and triphyllous pedicellariæ. 



Pleurechinus scillæ (Mazzetti) (PI. I. Figs. 9—10, 17—18). — The description 

 and figures of „Temnechinus' scillce given by Mazzetti') are very insufficient, being 

 made from a naked test, in which even the apical system was wanting. It is only 

 possible to see with certainty that it is no Temnectiinus but a Pleurechinus, as pointed 

 out by DE Meijere (though not Pleurech- bothrgoides as he supposes). (Siboga-Ech. 

 p. 79.) Finding that some of the specimens of Pleurechinus before me were pro- 

 bably identical with this species, I asked Prof. Rosa in Modena to lend me the 

 type-specimen for comparison; he very kindly sent it to me, for which service I 

 beg him to take my best thanks. The comparison did not leave any doubt that 

 my specimens were really identical with the „Temnec/j." scillæ, and I am thus able 

 to give a more detailed description of this hitherto very insufficiently known species 

 and to assign to it its true place in the system. 



The specimens from the British Museum which led me to suppose the iden- 

 tity with PL scillæ were taken at Muscat, in the Persian Gulf, thus very near to 

 the place from which the type-specimen had come. Together with these specimens 

 there was a pair of specimens from New Britain (^Collection Willey)^), difTering 



') Gli Echinidi del Mar Rosso. Mem. della R. Acad, di Sei. di Modena. 2 Ser. X. 1894. p. 213. 

 ') Mentioned bj' Beli. in his paper on the Echinodcrms collected by Dr. Wii.ley as Temnopleiinis 

 young. WiLLEV. Zoological Results. II 1899. p. 135. 



