KCHINOIDEA. II. 



species thev are dealing- with, oii tlie chance of fiiiding out that tlieir Idcalities were not iiiveii conecth 

 iu a classical work written 1)\ tht- most celebrated antlioiit\. 



In tlie precedino instance, it is true, careful pernsal of the text uiiglit have raised a doubt iu 

 the mind of tlie student; but mider l'lioniiosoiiin iirantis there is nothiiig said in the text about doubtful 

 identification. 0\\ this case I have written (Parti. p. 58): In the description of P/iornioson/a /irni/iis 

 Agassiz uses the expres.siou tlie only specimen coUected , l)ut nevertheless puts dowu for it two 

 different localities, St. 6 and St. 78. This riddle I am able to solve. In (the) British Museum a qnite 

 small Echinothurid is found from Cliall. St. 78 detenuined by Agassiz as P/i. iii-uinis/ / On this 

 basis St. 78 is uanied without any reservation as a localit\- of P/i.'> nraints (conip. Calvrrin i^nicilis 

 and EchiiiosoiiKi tiiiid). With regard to this specimen, it is otherwise very badly preserved, and not a 

 single pedicellaria is kept. It is qnite indeterminable, and consequenth it cannot be considered to be 

 correct to figure details of this specimen under the uame of P/ioni/osoiiia iiyaiins (without au\ inter- 

 rogation), as has been done by Agassiz (Chall. Ech. PI. XMII. c. fig. 12I. I think it cannot be denied 

 that lin remark is quite true and ver\- moderate aud not entirely out of j^lace.- But I might have 

 added that bv this incorrect meutiou of Station 78 the bath\ metrical distribution of the species becomes 

 1000 — 1525 fathom.s, as, iudeed, is definitely stated iu the list ou p. 311, whereas the species was theu 

 reallv kuown onK from a depth of 1525 fathoms. — Since I mereh' wish liere to justif\- m\ persona! re- 

 marks- I will not in this place allude to further iustances of this kind to l)e found iu the Report on the 

 Challenger Kchiuoidea, but I cannot pass from this subject without suggesting that the personal remarks 

 of Professor Agassiz, while not more moderate in their expression, are perhaps more out of place thau mine. 

 To pass to another criticism by Professor Agassiz (Panamic Deep-Sea Echiui p. 18): Dr. ^lorteu- 

 sen harps 011 the faet that a great main species of Cidaris as well as other Echinoids have been proved 

 b\- liim to belong to other genera than those to wliich tlie\- were referred b\- others, aud tlius he 

 constanth' fiuds a fine demonstration of the trustworthmess of the statements hitherto found iu the 

 literature with regard to the occurreuce and distribution of these animals! (Jnce given his genera, 

 the rest naturallv follow.s, and we have nothing left of what has preceded. This again might .seem 

 ver\- foolish in me, but the facts are realb' not quite those that might be iuferred from this remark In 

 Professor Agassiz. What I actualK' wrote in this couuectiou is as follows (Parti. p. 171 — 172); Thus 

 I ha\e established the faet that no less than 8 different species, of which, moreover, only oiie belongs 

 to the genus Dorocidnns, have iu the literature been wrongh' referred to D. papillata, viz. Dorocidaris 

 Hilda, Tretociddris aiiiiidata. spinosa, Cidaris a/yiiiis, haciilosa and another C7'<^(7/-/j-species (Chall. St. 204), 

 Stereocidoris Lorioli and another Stcrcocidaris-s^tci&s (Chall. St. 310) — a fine demonstration of the 

 tru.stworthiness of the statements hitherto found iu the literature etc. It will, I hope, be conceded that 

 this remark is not quite so foolish as would appear from Professor Agassiz" presentation of it. The 

 main thing in svsteniatic reports, lists of collections etc. is, .so far as I can see, the right identification 

 of the species; whether the species be referred to one genus or another is thus far of secoudar\- 

 importance and ma\ be a matter of discussiou amoug specialists. But the species are the units with 

 which science has to work. Wrong ideiitifications of species must cause all later work founded ou 

 these identifications to be erroneous and, indeed, lost labour. As I have found that 8 different species 

 had been wroiigh' mentioned iu literature under the name of Dorocidaris papillata, I thought aud still 



