ECHINOIUEA. I. 



165 



but freqnent are the reddish or dark, alniost black speciinens; a fine violet specimen mav now and 

 then be found (PI. I. Figs. 5 — 6. PI. II. Figs. 3 — 5). 



Rod ger (333. p. 163) .speaks of an «extraordinary variety of Sfr. drobachieiisis, with enormous 

 pedicellariæ . It must decidedly be asserted tliat a variety cannot be established characterized by 

 e.specially large pedicellariæ; the .size of the globiferous pedicellariæ (and they are certainly meant) is 

 so very varying, that it would be a quite absurd thing to distinguish different forms by this feature; 

 the difference in size is, moreover, increased by the neck of the pedicellariæ being now stretched out, 

 now retracted. We might with more probability expect to find a difference of importance in the 

 tridentate pedicellariæ, but the different varieties cannot be distinguished b}- means of those either. 

 A .-Var. with slender, reddish spines , mentioned by Verrill (416. p. 504), is scarcely better characterized 

 than the other varieties. 



There are in the literature a few statements of other regular Echinids from the North-European 

 seas. Agassiz (10) enumerates Echiniis iiielo among Echinids from the Faroe-Channel, but adds: 

 «there is nothing new». Here must, I think, be some mistake, and I must quite agree with Bell 

 (Catal. p. 155) that Ecli. inclo cannot on this basis be iucluded in the fauna of the North-European 

 seas — quite apart from the question, whether Ecli. iiirlo can upon the whole be kept up as a 

 distinct species. 



Dalla Torre (108. p. 92) mentions Stroti-gyloccntrofiis Ihidus from Helgoland; this is, no 

 doubt, a confounding with Sfr. drobachiensis, which latter is not named. Further H er dm an n 

 (194. p. 89) mentions ^.Sfr.i lividiis from Norway without further informations; this is siirely also 

 a mistake. The Norwegian coast-fauna has been so excellently examined by so many eminent 

 Norwegian naturalists, that it is quite inconceivable that this large, fine Echinid should have been 

 overlooked. Finally Sluiter (371. p. 70) states to have a specimen of Sphærechinus graimlaris from 

 Denmark. Unfortunately we must relinquish our claim to the joy of having this beautiful and inter- 

 esting Echinid in our seas; the northermost locality, from which it is known, is the Channel Isles. 

 (Bell. Catalogue. p. 106). 



fTable of the Echinids of the Families Echinidæ and Toxopneustldæ') occurring in the northern Atlantic 



and the Mediterranean. 



1. The spicules simply bihamate, the globiferous pedicellariæ 

 with I — more lateral teeth on either side 2. 



The spicules branched at the ends or dumb-bell-shaped, 

 the globiferous pedicellariæ without lateral teeth 13. 



2. The pores trigeminate 3. 



— multigeminate Paracfiifrofus lividus (L,amk.). 



3. The globiferous pedicellariæ with the edges of the blade 

 fine, projecting into several large indentations on either 

 side; no cross-beams connect the edges across the inside. . 4. 



1) In this table the species Eckhms gracilis, allanticits, and lucidua have been inchided, so that it coniprises all 

 sure ijc///«//j-species. 



