ECHINOIDEA. I. 



synonym of »largaritacrus. The species described above as margaritacciis^ will, if inargaritacciis and 

 niagellanicus really be identical, get the name of Stcrecli. diadema (Studer), in which species Sir reck. 

 aniarctinis (Koehler) is to be included as a synonym. With regard to the geographical distribution 

 it will, I siippose, be proved that Sf. diadema {margariiaceus}) only occurs in the seas round Kerguelen, 

 St. margaritaccus [i/iagcllaniciis] round Patagonia — analogous with Stereocidaris nutrix and caiiali- 

 citlata. The statements of diadema (under the name of margaritaceus) from Patagonia, I think will 

 have to be referred to Jiorridus^ which is, as to habitus, very similar to this species'). It is still to be 

 observed that SI. diadniia lias a distinct genital papilla. 



Sterecliiiiiis Iiorridits (p. 102). There are no piates in the buccal membrane outside of the buccal 

 piates, which carry spines. The actinal primary spines are not curved. The character pointed out in 

 the diagnosis of the genus Stereciiimis (p. 135), that the buccal membrane is almost or quite naked 

 outside of the buccal piates, is thus correct. 



Pseiidechinus albocinctiis (p. 104). One of the anal piates is somewhat larger than the others, 

 and Carries a larger tubercle. No spines on the buccal piates. 



Parecliiiius m icrotuber adahis (p. 107). The type specimen of this species is the common Medi- 

 terranean form; the statement of Bl a in vi ile that it has 6 jDairs of pores in each are, is thus incorrect. 



Sphærechimis atistraliæ (p. 117). Has a primary tubercle on all the ambulacral piates. Otherwise 

 the specimen e.xamined by me, is so very similar to Sph. gianularis^ that I should not be surprised, if 

 it proved to be this species ( — and in this case it is surely not from Austialia — ); perhaps I have 

 then not seen the real SpJi. anstraliæ at all. 



Strongyloceiitrotns intermedius and cJiloroceiitrohis (pp. 120 — 121). What I ha\'e hitherto regarded 

 as Str. iiifcrmedius is not this species, hnt Str. piilcherrimits (comp. my supposition expressed on p. 121 

 that pidcherriviKs^ infermcdius, and chloroccntrotiis (?) might be one species). The real i)dermedius^ 

 which I got to know from Prof. Doderlein, is as to habitus very similar to drobachiensis., also 

 with regard to pedicellariæ and spicules, but is — according to Doderlein 's (not published) examina- 

 tions — distiiiguished from this by having a coiisiderably larger number of piates in both areas, and 

 a rather smaller apical area than specimens of drøbachiensis of the same size. At all events the two 

 species are very closeh- allied. 



<.<Strongylocentrofus gibbosiis (p. 123). The cxamination of the pedicellariæ of one of the type 

 specimens in Paris shows that this species is an Echiuometrid, I suppose of the genus Toxocidaris^ or 

 perhaps a new genus. With the <g^\\\xs Loxechinus this species has nothing to do; the specimen (Chall. 

 st. 304), by which I referred gibbosiis to this genus, is thus wrongly determined (what I had a slight 

 impression of — comp. the incongruity in the relation of the ocular piates mentioned loc. cit.). Besides 

 the two type specimens (Expedition de la Bonite. M. Gaudichaud. 1837) two specimens are found in 



') When the remarks (above were priuted, I received from the museum m Jardiii des Plantes ■ a specimen called 

 Ech. maygat-itaceus from Cape Horn, 1S94 (Coll. Cotteau). As to habitus it resembles diadema, the secondar\' spines, however, 

 being somewhat coarser. All the ocular piates are shut off from the periproct; distinct central plate, as in diadema. Primår}- 

 tubercle on every other ambulacral plate — somewhat indistinct towards the apical area. Primary- spines round the mouth 

 curv-ed at the point; a few spines on the buccal piates. The pedicellariæ as in diadema. — Thus this specimen agrees neither 

 with diadema, horridus, nor Neumayeyi; nevertheless it seems rather irrational to iuterpret it as a separate species. The 

 supposition that diadema, horridus, and Nezmtayeri are all together only one very varj-ing species, seems to me to be rather 

 obvious. But to decide this question a great material wiU be necessar}-. 



