20 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



the spine, which Loriol has got from Paris, has really been of C.baculosa — such a changing of 

 loose spines in a museum is not absolutely inconceivable. The C. Liitkeni described by Loriol in 

 the same work, seems ratlier to be the real C.annuli/cra, which must then be very nearly related to 

 C.bispinosa^ perhaps identical with it. Bed for d (35 p. 274) also regards C. Luf keni a.s synonymous 

 with C.annulifera Lamk., but at the same time he seems to think it to be identical with Loriol' s 

 C.annulifera, which cannot be correct. Doderlein, who has examined a specimen of Lo ri ol 's C. 

 annuli/cra, finds this species to be highly consistent with C. baadosa. < Einen Unterschied zwischen 

 den beiden Arten kann ich nur in der Fårbung der Primårstacheln finden; denn selbst die Form der 

 Primårstacheln kann bei bestimmten Individuen beider Arten identisch seiu. — Nur die Fårbung des 

 Schaftes ist verschieden, indem L. amiiiUfcra Querbinden zeigt, die L. baculosa fehlen; die eigenthiim- 

 liche und anffallende Tiipfelung des Stachelhalses dagegen, die sonst nirgends zu beobachten ist, 

 findet sich bei beiden Arten in gleicher Weise. Nachdem aber eine Autoritåt wie Al. Agassiz auf 

 Grund eines reichlichen Materials die Frage nach der moglichen Identitåt der beiden Arten iiberhaupt 

 nicht aufwirft, kann ich es nicht wagen bei meinem gauz unzulånglichen Materiale eine sololie zu 

 behaupten. Ich kann hier nur constatieren, dass die oben beschriebene jugendliche Z. rt««?^//]^;-« nach 

 ihren såmmtlichen Charakteren, abgesehen nur von der Fårbung der Stacheln, unbedingt als ein 

 junges Exemplar von L. baculosa gelten kounte (116 p. 24). Prorainence is also given to the faet 

 that the pedicellariæ are quite identical. In another work (245) Loriol gives a thorough description 

 and figures of C. baculosa^ but its resemblance with the C. anmilifera before described b\- him, is not 

 at all mentioned. Thus the faet seems to be: either Lo ri ol 's C. anmilifera is realh' this species — 

 and then C. baculosa Lamk. and C. aimuli/era are synonyms — or it has, on account of some error 

 or otlier, been wrongly determined — and then C. anmilifera is most nearlj- related to C. bispinosa 

 Lamk. (perhaps synonymous with it). The latter is the more probable. An examination of the ty^je- 

 specimens, especially their pedicellariæ, will easily decide this question. To be sure, Per ri er has 

 figured pedicellariæ of these two species, but unfortunately only so little exactly and minutel}- that he 

 has not at all contributed to the clearing up of the question, especially as of one .species he has only 

 figured a globiferous pedicellaria, of the other only a tridentate one. 



According to Doderlein (116 p. 25) Schleinitzia crcmilaris Studer is very nearly related to C. 

 baculosa\ S tud er 's figures (386) agree also partly with it, the separately figured spines having all 

 the characteristic spots on the neck. On the figure of the whole animal these spots, however, are 

 not found, and as, according to informations I have received from both Geh.rath, Prof. E. v. Martens 

 and Prof. Doderlein, spines of at least two different species are found in the glass together with 

 the type-specimen (v. Martens has sent me some of the spines), the safest plan will be to say 

 nothing definite of this species, till the pedicellariæ of the type-specimen have been examined. 

 Studer only figures the small form of the globiferous pedicellariæ. 



Among the species referred to PhyllacantJuis by Agassiz, still one has not been mentioned, 

 viz. Ph. gigantca Ag. It differs from all other known Cidarids by its peculiar spines, as well primary 

 as secondary ones; also its pedicellariæ are pecuHar. The large globiferous ones (PI. X, Figs. 15, 19) 

 have a large cordate opening the lower limit of which is formed like a highly protruding lower lip; 

 the opening reaches to the very point, and no end-tooth is found. No lirab on the stalk. The 



