Q4 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



every (ambiilacral) plate has its primary tiibercle well developeds. He has not, however, used tliis 

 feature as a systematic character. On the otlier hånd Diiben & Koren') and G. O. Sars^) have 

 carefully noted this faet in their descriptions, and Koehler (233. a) has recently given prominence to 

 this feature in his description of Sterechinus antarcticus. 



The apical area, no doubt, shows some difference: sometimes all the ocular piates are shut off 

 from the periproct, sometimes one or more reach to it. That no greater importance can be attached 

 to this feature is a sure faet, which ma}' be seen with esjjecial clearness from a case as that of Ster- 

 echinus antarcticus {= Ech. inargaritacens)^ where in young individuals all the ocular piates are shut 

 off from the periproct, while in the adult they reach, all of them, to it (Koehler, 233. a). 



The structure of the spines does not seem to yield very good systematic characters. Mackin- 

 tosh (265) has given numerous excellent figures of transverse sections of spines from a great number 

 of species. But I do not think that he has found so great and reliable differences in this feature, that 

 it can be used as a criterion of a nearer or farther relation between the separate forms. Esjjecially 

 I think that a greater variation in the structure of the spines of the same species may be found, than 

 is to be seen from the work qiioted. Also the secondary spines of the different species may deserve 

 a nearer examination. Hesse (195. a) has recently made thorough studies of the structure of Echinid- 

 spines, esi^ecially the fossil ones. He arrives at the result, . dass fast jede der einzelnen Familien der 

 Echinoideen ihren elgenen mikrostrukturellen Stachelt>pus besitzt, und dass die histologischen Ver- 

 håltnisse der Stacheln ein wichtiges s}-stematisches Kennzeichen fiir die Familien und in gewissen 

 Ziigen \'on secundårer Werthigkeit oft sogar fiir die Gattungeu, ja fiir eiuzelne Arten der Seeigel 

 liefern (p. 204). He establishes 6 t}-pes: Cidaris, Ecliiiiiis^ Diadema^ Clypcastcr, Sc^itclUdæ^ and Spa- 

 tangus, and if we take the families to be of a corresponding extent, the spines may be seen to }ield 

 <;family;>-characters. The type of Ecliinus comprises both Temnopleurids, Echiuometrids, and Echinids 

 s. str. He divides them into two parts, a) with the radial septa not perforated, b) with the radial septa 

 perforated. To the first division belongs among others Toxopncustcs pilcoliis^ to the second Hipponoc 

 cscidenta — two forms that are no doubt ver}' nearly related. Such things j^rove how little valne is 

 to be ascribed to this character. Upon the whole it must be said that the structures mentioned by 

 Hesse will scarcely be of any great importance with regard to the recejit Echinids; with regard to 

 the fossil ones, on the other hånd, they will, no doubt, be of some importance, as we ma\' always from 

 the structure get some instruction with regard to the correct referring of the animal or the single 

 spine, even if it will only in rare cases be possible to get at the genus or the species. — Rothpletz 

 (346. p. 289) says of fRadioli cancellati • (corresponding to the <polycyclic acanthosphenote spines of 

 Mackintosh): <;Nach Agassiz wåre dieser letzte Tyjjus auf die Familie åex Echiitoiiietradæhesch.r:'Ånk.t, 

 wåhrend der zweite Typus (Rad. radiati) allen iibrigen Familien mit Ausnahme der Cidariden und 

 Saleniden zukåme . As far as I can see Agassiz has said no such thing; in Rev. of Echini (p. 654) 

 he says: <;In the Echinovictradæ we find the concentric rings most distinctly developed>; but that is 



1) Skandinaviens Echinodermer. Vet. Akad. Handl. 1844. 



2) Nye Echinodermer fra den norske Kyst. Vidensk. Selsk. Forhandl. 1871. p. 23 (in the description of Ech.depressus 

 I = noyveg!cus\\. 



