STrUTA 01 ■ JAVA. 



84 



a curved course. However the specific value is subject to 

 some doubt, as the development of the fasciolae may 

 vary to a certain, although rather limited extent in the 

 same species. 



16. Pericostnus alius Uerht. 



17. Breynia mitgna HefUl. spec, was described 

 by Herklots as Eupatagus magnus (I. c. pag. 13 , tab. 2 , 

 fig. 7). It is closely allied to B. Australasia Gray ; it differs 

 however from the recent specimens , which I have been able 

 to examine, by the more strongly bent border of the test 

 and the less conspicuous development of the secondary tu- 

 bercles on the marginal superior surface. The course of the 

 fasciola peripetala and of the fasciola interna is very in- 

 distinct, appears however to agree with that of B. Au- 

 stralasia. This justifies a separation from B. carinata d'Arch 

 et Haime (Anim. foss. de ITnde pag. 216, tab. 15, fig. 

 4). However , the fossil figured by Medlicott and Blanford 

 as B. carinata cCArch et Haime (Geology of India tab. 

 16, fig. 9) differs markedly from that, which d'Archiac 

 and Haime have described under that name, and shows 

 great affinity to the Javanese fossil. For the present I do 

 not feel justified to regard them as identical. 



18. Jtafetia ptanulata Gt*ay. Spatangua prae- 

 longus HerkL and «S. aji7iis Herkl. are identical with this 

 species and could never be brought under the genus Spa- 

 tungus Klein , as there are no primary tubercles on the 

 posterior intrambulacral area. The distinct fasciola suha- 

 nalis , which was neither noticed nor figured by Herklots , 

 does not allow of an identification with Hemipatagus Desor, 

 so that the Javanese fossil can never be identical with H. 



foi^mosus Zittel (Comp. Novara Expedition Palaeontologie von 

 Neu-Seeland pag. 63). The state of preservation of the 

 fossils is very sufficient and leaves no doubt as to their 

 identity with M. planulata Gray. 



19. Maretiu)! pulchelta Iterht. spev. It was des- 

 cribed by Herklots as a Spatangus , but must be separated 

 from this genus for the same reasons mentioned above. Still 



Notes iroTTi the Leyden TVIuseiim , "Vol. II. 



