ECHINOIDEA. I. 31 



When in the diagnoses of genera given here other features than pedicellariæ and spicules have 

 only been mentioned exceptionally the opinion of conrse is not that these structures should be suffi- 

 cient for definitive diagnoses. It has already been emphasized above, and I shall here emphasize once 

 more that all features must be thoroughly examined in order to get the mutual relations of the forms 

 established. That I have here only treated the pedicellariæ more thoroughly is a consequence of the 

 faet that neither my material nor my time has permitted me to treat the other features more parti- 

 cularly. The system of the Cidarids cannot get its definitive formulation, until all features have been 

 examined in a greater number of species (or best in all species). What is given here is a provisional 

 classification , which can scarcely be correct throughout, but it has the great advantage of the earlier 

 systems that it is possible to recognise the genera with certainty. Several things, moreover, indicate 

 that the genera, at all events most of them, have here been correctly interpreted. The species referred 

 to the same genus are upon the whole of similar appearance, so that the genera may in most cases 

 be recognised by their habitus alone. Also the distribution seems to become more clear by the 

 grouping given here. — Whether the genera may be grouped in larger divisions — subfamilies — 

 cannot be decided at present. In the structure of the pedicellariæ there seems only to be a single 

 feature that miglit possibly be of some importance for such a grouping, viz. whether the large globi- 

 ferous pedicellariæ have an end-tooth or not. Whether this feature is of so great importance, can 

 only be decided, when the necessary thorough examinations have been made. 



I. Dorocidaris papillata (Leske). 



PI. V, Figs. 6, 7, S. PI. VIII, Figs. i, 3, 12, 14, 27. PI. IX, Figs. 3, 5, 7, 13—15, 20, 25, 27. PI. XI, Figs. 14, 26, 31. 

 Main synonyms: Cidaris papillata Leske. 



— hystrix Lamk. 



— borcalis Diib & Kor. 

 Dorocidaris abyssicola A. Ag. 



Non: Cidaris affinis Phil. 



Principal literature: Sv. Nilsson & A. L. Holst: CoUectanea Zoologiæ Scandinavicæ. 181 7. 

 p. II. — Diib en & Ko ren: Ofversigt af Skandinaviens Echinodernier. Kgl. Vetensk. Akad. Hand- 

 lingar for år 1844. Stockholm 1846. p. 255. T. IX. 25—30. — M. Sars: Bidrag til Kundskaben om 

 Middelhavets Littoralfauna. 1857. p. 109. Oversigt af Norges Echinodernier. 1861. p. 93. — A. Agassiz: 

 Revision of Kchini. Part. IL p. 254. PI. I. etc. «Challenger»-Echinoidea (8). p. 38. Blake -Echinoidea (9). 

 p. 12. — Wyv. Thomson: Echinoidea of Porcupine (395). p. 722. PL LIX. i — 13. — V. Gauthier: 

 160. — R. Koehler: 217. p. 113- — H. Prouho: 327. — R. Rathbun: '336. p. 611. — C. Stewart 

 379. — E. A. Verrill: 418. — W. E. Hoyle: Revised Li.st of British Echinoidea. (202). p. 404. — F 

 Jeffr. Bell: Catalogue of British Echinoderms. 1872. p. 139. 69. 



With regard to the great number of other works in which this species is noticed or more 

 particularly mentioned, reference may be made to Agassiz's Revision of Echini, Bell's Catalogue, 

 and Ludwig (256); there complete lists of synonyms are also given. 



