8 ECHINOIDEA. II. 



tiiink rny remark ou the trustvvorthiness of such statements quite justified. If I liad made that remark 

 011 account of the species Dorocidaris papillata having been referred to different genera, the above 

 cited remark of Professor Agassiz would have been justified; but the case is realh- quite the reverse. 

 It ma\ not be snperfhious to state that in consequence of the erroneous determinations in the case 

 cited above of Dorocidaris papilla/a. this species is stated to occur at La Plata, the Philippines and 

 in the Red Sea, whereas it is really kiiown only from the Northern Atlantic (as far south as St. Paul 

 rocks) and the Mediterranean. — A few otlier instances ma\' be given: 



Ec/iiiitis iwrvcgiciis is stated (Chall. Echini p. 1171 to ha\-e been taken b\- the Challenger at 

 Cape Cod (St. 46 and 47), off the West coast of Patagonia (St. 3081 and off Japan (St. 232 and 235I. The 

 alleged occurrence at Patagonia has proved of particular importance, causing this species to be ranged 

 among bipolar animals. Examination of the specimens in the British Museum (except those from 

 St. 235) gives the following result: The specimens from St. 46 and vSt. 47 are Echimis affii/is, those 

 from Patagonia (St. 308I are parth- Ecliiniis magellanictts and parth another species of Ec/iiinis. 

 closeh' aliied to Ec/i. rlcgans. (M>- examination does not enable me to state with certaint\ to which 

 species the latter belong, but it shows clearly that they are not Echiiius Horvegims (= ticii/ns]). The 

 specimens from St. 232 are probabh- Ec//iinis hicidus. certainh' not E. /lor^'cgiais and it seems a natural 

 inference that those from St. 235 are not E. j/or7'(giciis either. It tlius follows that there is not a 

 single specimen of E. norvcgicus among all the specimens referred to that species in the Challenger 

 Report. Conseqiienth', the almost cosmopolitan distribution of this species and its bipolar nature botli 

 of wliich ha\'e been deduced from the statements of that report eau 110 longer be upheld. 



For Triiinoplciiriis Hardivickii the following localities are given in the Challenger Echinoidea 

 (p. 107): Kobi, Japan; Arafura Sea; off Yokohama and St. 192 (at the Kei Islands). I have examined 

 all the specimens in the British Museum and found them to Ije as follows: Kobi — Tcninophiirus 

 toreumaticus\ Arafura Sea — a ver\ \oung specimen, probabh' T. foreumaticus\ St. 192 — a beautifnl 

 specimen representing a new species of the very interesting genus OpccJmms, known hitherto onl\- as 

 fossil — one of the most interesting species taken b\- the Challenger: '. — Thiis it is only the speci- 

 mens from Yokohama which are realh- T. 1 lardivickii-. 



The preceding instances are perhaps enough to justifx the epithet nntrustworthy. as applied 

 to the older identifications made withont microscopical examination of pedicellariæ, spicules and other 

 parts. If further justification is demanded, numerous other instances of wrong ideutification will be 

 found pointed out in both parts of this work as well as in the work on the Siam-Echinoidea — 

 from tlie works of Professor Agassiz as well as from other, less famous anthors. 



Professor Agassiz finds it childish to be constantly lamenting, as do Dr. Mortensen and Dr.de 

 Meijere, the loss of a specimen, if examined by the old method, necessary for the examination of the 

 test, and of the actinal and abactinal systems. Sureh' we caiinot welcome a method which deliberately 

 saves a specimen in order to remaiu ignorant of its structure. (Op. cit. p. 19.) I fullx agree with Professor 

 Agassiz that it is the dut\' of the describer of new or imperfectlv known species to elucidate as fully 



■ This species was described \>y uie as Opechinus speclabilis in «Tlie Danish Expedition to Siani 1899- 1900. Zoolo- 

 gicai Results. II. Echinoidea. I. Mém. Acad. Se. Copenhagen. 7. Ser. I. 1904, p. 94- Also, the Pleurechinus variabilis \)iS<iex\éi\\ 

 proved to belong to the genus Opechinus. 



- Op. cit. p. 62. 



