Appendix. 



In a paper by D. I !. To ii ii <.■ ii I on 'The early influence of the spermatozoa 

 upon the characters of Kchinoid larvee" (Papers from the Torlugas Labora- 

 tory of the Carnegie Inst. Washington. Vol. V, 1914) some observations 

 on the early developmental stages of Eucidaris tribuloides (Lamk) are 

 recorded. It is evident Ihal the larva of this species agrees closely with 

 that of Eucidaris Thoiiarsi (comp. p. 22, PI. V, Figs. 1—2). In the Pluteus, 

 6 days old, represented in his ligure 6 (p. 133) the skeleton is shown; the 

 postoral rods are fenestrated, horizontally directed. One cannot help being 

 struck by the resemblance with the Echinopluteiis Iransversus shown by 

 this young larva, and — in spite of the ophiccphalous pedicellarite - the 

 conclusion seems almost unavoidable that Evhinophilciis Iransversus really 

 is the Ci(/rtr/.s-larva. 



The paperisnot recorded either in the "Zoological Record" or the 'Biblio- 

 graphia zoologica." It was therefore only per chance that I discovered it in 

 time for mentioning this important observation by Tennent in this place. 



When speaking of the phylogenetic importance of the larva of the 

 viviparous Ophionolus hexaclis (p. 238) I forgot to mention the larva of 

 Chirodota rolifera, which, although developing within the body cavity of 

 the mother, has also fairly distinct ciliated bands like those of the typical, 

 free-living larvae.^) 



Attention may still be called to an interesting paper by 1. Stanley 

 Gardiner: "Notes and observations on the distribution of the larvae of 

 marine animals". (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. VII, Ser. XIV, 190 1, p. 103—410), 

 in which the problem of the importance to be ascribed Id marine larva^ 

 "in distributing species and genera from shore to shore, from one littoral 

 zone to another" is discussed. In general the views of Stanley Gardiner 

 are not in contradiction to those set forth in the present work, and I 

 do not see any reason for entering on a detailed discussion thereof, the 

 more so as I most sincerely agree with the author in the main object of 



'> H. I.. ('. I a rU. I )rvtlo|)iiiiiil dI ;ui A|)0(1ous 1 lolot luiriaii (CliiiodoUi rolifera). .lourn. 

 Hxperim. /ool. 1\. I'.Mii. 



