104 ECHINOIDEA. I. 



In Challenger»-Echinoidea p. ii6 Ech. »lagellaniciis is mentioned from Prince Edward Island 

 and Crozet Islands, from the latter place at a depth of 1600 fathoms (st. 147). I can assert positively 

 that the latter is not Ech. »iagcllaiiicus\ its globiferous pedicellariæ are of quite anotlier form than in 

 this species. I suppose it to be a new species allied to Ech. Ncuv/ayeri and the other species belong- 

 ing liere, but as I have not a sufficient material of pedicellariæ of it, nor sufficient notes of it, I must 

 restrict myself to show that it is no Ech. uiogellanicus. I also take it to be doubtful whether the 

 speciniens from Prince Edward Island are Ech. magellaiiicii^s:, at all events they will have to be exa- 

 mined more thoroughly with regard to the characters mentioned here. That this species is found at 

 Australia and New-Zealand I must also regard as doubtful, until renewe,d, thorough examinations have 

 confirmed these statements. To be sure, Farquhar (144) enumerates Ech. iiiagcllanicus among the 

 Echinids of New-Zealand, but it may, perhaps, be Ech. albociiictns^ which, in a communication from Prof. 

 H u 1 1 o n , is said to be the same species. That this statement is incorrect will be shown hereafter. 

 Perhaps also Ecli. dariileyciisis may be hidden among the Australian Echinids referred to Ech. magcl- 

 lanictis^ as has been supposed by Woods (442. p. 165). For the present Ech. »lagellanicus is only 

 known with certainty from the coasts of Patagoma and the adjoining seas. — Some small specimens 

 from Chall. st. 308 (Patagonia), by Agassiz referred to Ech. norvcgictis^ are magcllaniciis. 



Echiniis albochichis Hutton. A specimen of an Echi7t7is-s])&<:\&s from New-Zealand which from 

 earlier times is found in the museum of Copenhagen, must, no doubt, be referred to this species, as it 

 agrees exactly with the description. The description by Hutton, however, is far from being 

 exhaustive — what may be applied to almost all descriptions of Echinids — and so some informations 

 of this species are given here. — A primary tubercle is found on all the ambulacral piates; the actinal 

 spines are not curved at the point, the small spines rather tliick, almost smooth. One of the ocular 

 piates reaches almost quite to the periproct which is small, and (as far as can be seen) covered by 

 few, rather large piates without central plate. The buccal membrane is quite naked, with the excep- 

 tion of the buccal piates; whether spines are foimd on these cannot be decided. The globiferous pedi- 

 cellariæ (PI. XIX. Fig. 19) have only one unpaired lateral tooth; the basal part is very varying iu form, 

 sometimes with strongly projecting outer corners, sometimes roiuided — or rounded on one side, pro- 

 jecting on the other. The tridentate pedicellariæ (PI. XIX. Fig. 25) are most similar to those of 

 E. magellanicus.1 but the edge is a little serrate, not thick and smooth where the valves are open; in 

 the little space at the point where the valves meet, the edge is finely serrate. Below the articular 

 surface there is a peculiar are reminding of that of the ophicephalous pedicellariæ; also in other Echi- 

 nids an indication of such an are may be found. The ophicephalous and tridentate pedicellariæ of the 

 common form. The spicules bihamate, they seem to be rather few. — That this species is well distin- 

 guished from Ech. magellanicus is evident from the informations given here. — Echiinis cicvahis Hutton, 

 according to an information received from Prof. Hutton, is synonymous \s\\\\ Amblypnetistes foriiios7i.^. 



Echimis fasciatus Parfitt (311), no doubt, is only a young specimen of one of the Echinids 

 occurring at the coasts of England, but to which of these it may belong, it is impossible to see from 

 the description — it ma)- be applied to each and all of tliem, from Stroiigyloc. drobachiensis to Ech. 

 inilians. Philippi (323) enumerates the species Echiniis Cunninghauii, lepldtis, and rodtila without 



