26 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



canaliculata\ aniong the deep-sea forms at all events one new species is fotmd , and npon the whole 

 scarcely any genuine G. canalictdata is found among them. 



In the typical G. canaliculata the large globiferovis pedicellariæ do not differ niuch from those 

 of Goniocidaris tubaria^ or still less from those of G. iiiiibraciiluin; they are somewhat narrower, and 

 the blade is a little curved inward below the rather large opening that reaches to the point; there is 

 no end-tooth (PL VIII. Figs. 8, 32). The small pedicellariæ, on the other hånd, are very different from 

 those of the genuine Goniocidaris-s'^ec\&s , as there is no end-tooth (PI. VIII. Fig. 6). Spicules simple. 

 — The young are carried ou the apical area. :Cidaris'> nutrix (Wyv. Thorn son' s type specimen 

 examined): the large pedicellariæ (PL X. Figs. 3 — 4, 12, 14) very much resembling those of Stcrcocidaris 

 grandis (Doderlein 116. PL VIII. 2); the small globiferous enes (PL X. Fig. 24) chiefly as in G. canali- 

 culata. — The yoiing are carried round the mouth. 



The two species are most frequently easily distinguished as to their habitus. In C. nutrix 

 the apical area is densely set with rather long, club-shaped spines, between which large pedicellariæ 

 are found abundantly. In G. canalicnlata the apical area is set with rather few and scattered, not club- 

 shaped spines sorae of which are quite small, so that the area looks rather naked; generally no pedi- 

 cellariæ are found on the apical area. This difference, however, is not absolutely reliable, and without 

 the pedicellariæ the two species are not alwajs to be distinguished with certainty. 



It is evident that these two species cannot be referred to the genus Goniocidaris^ especially 

 the small pedicellariæ are different from those oi Goniocidaris., as they have no end-tooth. Doderlein 

 (116. p. 18) thinks G. canaliculata to be nearly allied to Dorocidaris\ to be sure it occupies an extreme 

 position in the «. Dorocidaris -^rowp, and perhaps it might also be regarded as the only representative 

 of a special group. In many respects it recalls the vEucidarisi-gvoup. «Wirklich nahe Beziehungen 

 zu einer der bisher bekannten Arten von Cidariden bietet diese Form jedenfalls nicht dar i. — As has 

 already been mentioned, the pedicellariæ of C. nutrix are very similar to those of Stcrcocidaris grandis., 

 and these two species would seem to have to be referred to the genus Stcrcocidaris; at all events 

 there seems to be no objection of consequence to their being referred to this genus, and it might be 

 difficult to point out a character, which would necessitate the establishing of a special genus for these 

 species. The simple spicules are in accordance with those of St. grandis (in the other Stcrcocidaris- 

 species they are, as mentioned, large fenestrated piates). 



Of the species i. Goniocidaris» vivipara and nicnibranipora the former (according to Studer, 386) 

 is .synonymous with G. canaliculata., which statement I am able to corroborate from the examination 

 of a specimen that our museum has received from the museum at Berlin. The other (also according 

 to examination of specimens from the museum at Berlin) is identical with Cidaris nutrix W. Th., as 

 has already been supposed by Studer (385). As the paper by W-yv. Thomson (397) bears the date 

 of June I"' 1876, and that of Studer (384) the date of July 27"^ 1876, the name of nutrix has the 

 priority. Now we raeet here with a new difficulty. Studer says of G. inciiibranipora (384 p. 455): 

 «Die jungen Cidaris bleiben auf dem Analfelde der Mutter bis zu ihrer volligeu' Entwicklung, von den 

 obern Stachelreihen geschutzt, die sich kreuzweise dariiber legen». According to this statement this 

 species would seem nevertheless to carry the young now arround the mouth, now on the apical area. 

 As this seems to me to be very improbable, I must suppose a mistake to have taken place, so that 



